Uzbeks & Uyghurs: differencies & similarities
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ethnic History of Central Asia
Forum Discription: Discussions about the ethnic origins of Central Asian peoples. All topics related to ethnicity should go here.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23482
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 13:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Uzbeks & Uyghurs: differencies & similarities
Posted By: alish
Subject: Uzbeks & Uyghurs: differencies & similarities
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2008 at 19:31
I am not sure if this topic was discussed before in the forum, just i decided to share some information on reasons for that uzbeks & uyghurs have many traditionals common for both of these two nations. Not just language, also musical instruments and dances are very the same. I don't know if uyghurs have traditional food - POLOV, or somsa, kulcha non  . I know it sounds funny but damn it's really interesting !Maybe there are some other nations common with the uzbek-uyghur traditions??? |
Replies:
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 23:35
|
Imagine there was no border between O'zbekistan and Sherqiy (Eastern) Turkistan, it would be like the same country, the similarities are striking, language, religion, history, cultural... ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 04:03
|
But there is also Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan between Uzbekistan and Eastern Turkestan.
Perhaps similarities are also due to the fact that Uighurs and Uzbeks historically were more sedentary people unlike their other more "nomadic" Turkic neighbors. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης 
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 15:05
This is an important factor, the real distinction between Turkic people is if they are nomadic or sedentary, semi-nomadic or towns people, moutain men or low landers. There are generally many similarities to be found by looking at how the communities live.
The settled Turkic people living in todays O'zbekistan and Eastern Turkistan/Xinjiang are responsible for a large amount of the literature, civillisation, architecture etc in the region, the nomads don't have as rich a written literature however, when it comes to oral literature the Kirgiz have Manas, one of the longest epic poems in the world. The different lifestyles are the reason for this.
Where the settled peoples in what was Turkiston all were taught the same language, nomads didn't go to school and kept their dialects, this is why the settled people in central asia have such high mutual intellegiblity while the nomads have higher intellegibility with each other instead of with the city peoples.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: oghuzkb
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 16:57
|
Yes, we uyghurs have such traditional foods. Slightly different pronunciation, Polo, Samsa, the last one I am not sure, may be southern Uyghurs have it. Couple of months ago, I invited an Uzbek student from Buxara, we had no problem with communication, he speaks Uzbek with his Buxara dialect, I speak Uyghur with my own dialect. The diffrence is like the difference among Uyghur dialects. I made polo, he said its exactly the same with their´s. By the way, there are also some Uyghur groups who have strickingly similar traditional clothes and customs with Khazaq/ Kyrgiz people, just look at this video, then you will know what I meant. The video from Lopnur Uyghurs, they live near ancient Kiroran(roran). The Ili uyghurs have the same. But you hardly find such clothes among other Uyghur regions, and each region has its unique clothing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afq-_BUEKek - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afq-_BUEKek ------------- ALLAH gave us two books---Quran and Nature. ---Jamaliddin Efghany |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 07:02
|
Not to change the topic, but I'm just kind of suprised to see lots of Persian words among Uighurs. As far as I remember from other threads in AE , Uighur "hun" (blood), "lew" (lip), and now here, "Polo" and "Samsa" are all of Persian origin. ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 20:42
|
Due to highly developed literature tradition among Uyghurs, in the middle ages, Uyghur turkic became language of literature and science in central asia. Learning centers emerged in significant numbers in Turpan, Kusen, Qeshqer, Yerken, Hoten, Semerqent, Buhara, Hirat etc cities. Arabic and Persian became compulsary subjects, as the common folks also tend to use literal language especially in the cities, you can find many Arabic and Persian words in Uyghur. However you can also find the the Turkic counterpart of these words used at the same or more frequency. I also want to stress that we shouldn't attribute all the words which are used both in Persian and Turkic to Persian originality without studying the ethymology and neglecting the Turkic influence to the Persian due to more than thousand of years of rulings. Even the most basic Persian pronoun for "I" ie "man" is Turkic origin.
By the way, "Lew" is not as commonly used as "Kalpuk".
Uyghurs and eastern Uzbeks are the same folks in any kind of scale.
Northen Uzbeks might have more Qipchaq influence, while the western Uzbeks have more Oghuz and in big cities some Tajik elements. Uyghurs in general don't have Qipchaq, Oghuz or Tajik elements.
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 01:43
|
Most of the city Uzbeks are in fact Tukicized Tajiks. Until the 1920th both Tajiks and city Uzbeks were both called "Sarts," there literally wasn't any difference between them and most of them used both languages (Tajik and Uzbek) interchangeably. However, due to the Soviet ethnic policy Tajik and Uzbek were distinguished. In fact, this differentiation was very artificial. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 02:14
There has been settled Turks since the time of the Uygur and Karakhanid states.
Temur settled many semi-nomadic tribes and moved them into cities.
Unless Tajiks suffered wide-spread amnesia and were brainswashed en-mass into believing their mother-tongue and identity was Turkic this claim just doesn't add up.
The amount of times I hear such stories makes me wonder if Turkic peoples have some panarormal ability of managing to make populations of people simply forget who they are and re-programme them like robots into changing their mother tongue, identity, tribal association, sense of history and legacy...
Or do populations who encounter Turkic peoples just say, damn these guys are cool, I'm becomming one of them, sign me up
Is there anyone who hasn't been Turkicized  how do Turks manage to Turkicize people without a Turkification policy is bewildering.------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 02:38
|
What I wrote is an accepted fact. Strange that you didn't know that. And I also don't understand why you think it's so unusual? Until Uzbekistan was artificially created in the 1920th most of the city dwellers in Samarkang and Bokhara still were Persian speaking Tajiks. By now most of them just got "Uzbekinized." But again what I wrote is just a common knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks
Although http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic - Altaic infiltration into Central Asia had started early, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-7 - [8] as late as the 13th century AD when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages - Turkic-speaking and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol - Mongol armies finally conquered the entire region, the majority of Central Asia's peoples were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples - Iranic peoples such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogdians - Sogdians , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactrians - Bactrians and, more ancient, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka - Saka – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massagetae - Messagetae tribes. It is generally believed that these ancient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages - Indo-European-speaking peoples were linguistically assimilated by smaller but dominant Turkic-speaking groups while the sedentary population finally adopted the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian language , the traditional http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca - lingua franca of the eastern Islamic lands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-Iranica - [9] The language-shift from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Iranian - Middle Iranian to Turkic and New Persian was predominantly the result of an elite dominance process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-8 - [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-9 - [11] This process was dramatically boosted during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire - Mongol conquest when millions were either killed or pushed further south to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamir - Pamir region.
The modern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbek_language - Uzbek language is largely derived from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagatai_language - Chagatai language , an Eastern Turkic language which gained prominence in the Mongol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_dynasty - Timurid Empire . The position of Chagatai (and later Uzbek) was further strengthened after the fall of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persianate_society - highly Persianized Timurids and the rise of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Shaybani - Shaybanid Uzbek Khaqanate that finally shaped the Turkic language and identity of modern Uzbeks, while the unique grammatical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-10 - [12] and phonetical features of the Uzbek language as well as the modern Uzbek culture reflect the more ancient Iranic roots of the Uzbek people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-Iranica - [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-11 - [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-12 - [14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-13 - [15 ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 03:24
According to who?
Turkic settled populations inhabitted city regions for a millenia, there numbers increasing as time progressed. Turkic and Tajik populations were living together and still do.
Are they stupid, do they have a memory like a sieve that they forget who they are and their language, how exactly do people just give up who they are.
And the wikipedia article is not only inacurate, its contradicts itself.
So the Iranic speakers somehow became assimilate Turks, then the Turks en-mass adopted Persian...
What next...
Incredible.
So the band of Turks who somehow assimilated the Iranics, who then for some reason became Persian theeeeeen managed to make Persian speakers become Turkic speakers.
Oh and there is more...
So the promoters of Chagtai Turki, the Timurids who made it a lingua-franca, whose reign resulted in the region being known as Turkistan, who gave rise to the likes literary masters of Turki such as AliSher Navoi, Lufti, Huseyin Baykara, who renovated reverred Turkic shrines and paid homage to Yasavi and patroned Turkic culture were actually holding the language back
 It was duriing the Timurids that Turki joined Arabic and Farsi to become one of the important languages and literatures of the muslim world.
Yet some half-wit writting this wikipedia article failed to realise all this.
The article is listed as a "B-class" article, no wonder, it needs alot more attention. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 03:46
|
I just cited this article because it was a convenient reference. But I did read the same stuff in several books. And BTW, why do you think it's so important?
Aren't you saying that genetics, ethnic origins, aren't important as long as a particular people consider themselves to be X, or Turks in our case.
So, does it really makes a big difference if those Uzbeks do consider themsleves Uzbeks and speak Uzbek language, although they originate from Tajiks? They still remain Uzbeks regardless. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 11:51
We all originate from Adam and Eve if we go back far enough, some may have mixed with Tajiks, others with Arabs others with Mongols. This doesn't make O'zbek Tajiks and why are there always stories of Iranics "becomming" Turks, do Iranics have some weakness for forgetting who they are?
How can all these people be assimilated without an assimilation program while Turks didn't get assimilated?
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: alish
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 16:23
Still Tajiks speak tajik and uzbeks speak uzbek... Uzbeks were named with such name as "sarts" not because they could speak several languages.... but mostly due to the fact that they fought against tsar army, for the honor and identity... for their lands and cities... what they owned for centuries............. I understand it is so hard for you to understand this fact. and only for that reason, russians did all they could in order to achieve, well, I can say what they achieved, in terms of national history of uzbeks.... You see everything with the eyes of russians, the way they preffered to be...... dude, don't loose the sense of reality... How it can happen all of a sudden, different nations gather and start talking in uzbek. Yes there might be a few tajiks whose generations accepted themselves as uzbeks, but i hardly believe that it has to cause to be said "most of the uzbeks are turkified tajiks, mongols or any others". There could be so a very few of them But damn not most of them.... Russians are the same...... Try to analyze things based on real facts which can confirm your decision not based on just analytical assessments which are not confirmed with originals.... thank you |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 17:41
Process of switching from a language to another one doesn't occur in one night and can have reasonable steps. Look at the northern Africa and many parts of middle east who adopted the arabic language and culture and became Arab. the same story happened in central Asia. many people passed this region, conquered it, settled down and left. First of all, Sassanid spread Persian language in this region and many other Iranic tribes who were not Persian started to adopt Persian language slowly. Sassanids ruled the region for 4 centuries as the result many people became bilingual or adopted Persian language. later in 10th century Turkic Ghaznavids came to region and mass immigration of Turks occurded. After Ghaznavid many Turkic dynasties ruled the region but many of them still used the Persian as their court language. Their language were heavily influenced by Persians.There were large Iranic communities in the cities since they were city dwellers and a lot of turks still lived as nomadic or semi-nomadic, when Mongols invaded the central Asia. As you have read in history book Mongols ruined many cities and killed or enslaved almost all city dwellers in central Asia. along side of Mongol army were many Turkic soldiers and Tribes who came to the region and settled down this changes many thing in central Asia and language was one of them. many Iranic tribes and communities were already bilingual and in places where Tukic tribes were majority the slowly switched to Turkic language, but those who lived in area majority Persian speakers kept their language. There are many reason for changing language specially if you live in cities not being nomadic. Look at the hazaras in Afghanistan. They are Mongol by origin but they speak a dialect of Persian now. So changing language is not an strange thing and do not need any special program. People change their language due to their need to communicate with other people around them, to learn something which is in another language, to work with foreigners and many other reason. I see the switching from one language to another in this process. 1. borrowing heavily form another language in your conversations 2. slowly becoming a bilingual. 3. living in an area who have to speak and communicate with another language 4. deciding to change your language to become a member of the majority and have less differences with them so they accept you better and you can communicate better ( this occur specially when your children and next generation prefer the other language.) 5. Now, you has completely changed your language and your next generation became ...ized. Very simple. ------------- Anfører |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 18:14
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 - 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. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 18:17
I can understand the learning of different languages for isolated communities but what is being suggested is not just the adoption of another language but also the elimination and adoption of another identity.
In addition to this, the Turkification arguments are further weakened by the fact Persian or Arabic was never forbidden, it was taught in schools there were even some Turkic states who used Persian as the official language. How is it possible in such an environment with no force to either speak Turkic or become a Turk that people can become Turkified.
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.
It puzzled me as well.
These accusations arn't just reserved to O'zbeks, the accusations of Turkified communities is ridiculous.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 18:32
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 18:44
Were not just talking about "linguistic assimilation" here.
How can a people change not only their mother-tongue but also their identity and in addition to this start claiming they belong to Turkic tribes and clans...
This isn't just weird its wacky.
Let's suggest that Russians are actually Tatars who for some reason en-mass adopted Russian as their mother-tongue, not only did they stop their, they totally forgot they were Tatars and starting claiming they were Russians, then they all started adopting Russian family names and then adopting forms of Russian culture, learning Russian legends and singing Russian songs
These theories are heavily connected with the Stalinist era which clamed down on anything Turkic fearing Turkic uprisings. As we know hundreds of intellects were arrested, killed or forced into exile on charges of Pan-Turkism for crimes as little as writting poems.
The official state theory became, you speak Turkic languages and think your Turkic via a complete coincidence. To prevent the Turkic peoples from uniting, Stalin ordered historians to prove that they were completely unrelated to one another, that all of them had different blood, religions and traditions. In addition, the education taught, that the people are historic enemies with each other but somehow Russia is the great civillised brother doing the region a big favour.
The books and studies during these periods aim was to spread illogical theories such as Turks arn't really Turks they're just peoples who speak Turkic and think they're Turkic but really have no connection and their similarities are a complete coincidence.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 18:50
|
Have you even tried to read the article by the Tajik scholar I posted? Obviously not. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 18:58
Rahim Masov
this should be moved to "Historical amusement".The plot thickens, Tajiks now were apparently Turkified in less than 5 years.
Rahim Masovs job is create a pre-Soviet cultural revival in an attempt to foster a sense of national identity.
The problem with Tajik nationalism is, they arn't proud of Dushanbe or other Tajikistani cities, in order to create a sense of glory and nationalism they must lay claim to cities like Samarkand and Bukhara.
To fuel people's nationalism they must create an enemy, yep those terrible Turkic peoples.
And how to explain a Turkic presence in supposed Tajik lands? thats easy, potray them as the "stupid Tajiks" who sold out but the brave freedom loving Tajiks will take back the land and free them  ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 19:04
|
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?
Is it just because you are not Tajik? I'm afraid this is the real reason.
And, secondly, all the sources I posted have academic references, while you guys are just showing your anger and saying: nonsense, damn etc. It's not a good way to prove your point.------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 19:05
I have read the books of this nutcase, if we are to take him seriously we may as well go all out and start reading Polat Kaya's wacky theories of the Sumerians actually being Turks
 If you want to meet Masovs fanbase and have a "literary" debate about his fairy tales it would be better to join
http://pan-iranism.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=1770 - http://pan-iranism.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=1770
Masov claims Tajiks became Turkified by force in a matter of a few years and that O'zbekistan is an evil state which stole Tajikistans land and were involved in a wild conspiracy with the Soviets to oust the Tajiks.
Oh really, they are just Masovs interpretation of events.
Masov has a hard time accepting that Tajiks were more interested in being part of a Central Asian predominantly Turkic union and didn't have time for Pan-Iranism.
He himself is blaming Tajiks of conspiracies, being traitors and joining the Turks.
There are no acedmic sources used.
Its just typical Masov, he describes the Turks as if they just arrived, they had been ruling the region for over a millenia.
Also the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic was an autonomous region of the Ozbek SSR.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 20:08
|
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.
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 22:34
The wiki article changes everyday.
Rahim Masovs job is create a pre-Soviet cultural revival in an attempt to foster a sense of national identity.
His main targets include Tajiks who co-operate and co-operated with Turkic peoples instead of Iranics.
The Stalinist Soviets aim was to divide and conquer, to repress any movements towards Central Asian unity, to create tensions between Turkic and Tajik peoples who historically had good relations and exploit the region. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 01:32
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. ------------- Anfører |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 06:39
The books which were written do not change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks
Origins
Although http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic - Altaic infiltration into Central Asia had started early, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-7 - [8] as late as the 13th century AD when http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turk_languages&action=editredlink - Turkish-speaking and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol - Mongol armies finally conquered the entire region, the majority of Central Asia's people were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_people - Iranic people such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogdians - Sogdians , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactrians - Bactrians and, more ancient, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka - Saka – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massagetae - Messagetae tribes. It is generally believed that these ancient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages - Indo-European-speaking people were linguistically assimilated by smaller but dominant Turkish-speaking groups while the sedentary population finally adopted the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian language , the traditional http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca - lingua franca of the eastern Islamic lands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-Iranica - [9] The language-shift from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Iranian - Middle Iranian to Turkish and New Persian was predominantly the result of an elite dominance process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-8 - [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-9 - [11] This process was dramatically boosted during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire - Mongol conquest when millions were either killed or pushed further south to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamir - Pamir region. The modern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbek_language - Uzbek language is largely derived from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagatai_language - Chagatai language , an Eastern Turk language which gained prominence in the Mongol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_dynasty - Timurid Empire . The position of Chagatai (and later Uzbek) was further strengthened after the fall of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persianate_society - highly Persianized Timurids and the rise of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Shaybani - Shaybanid Uzbek Khaqanate that finally shaped the Turk language and identity of modern Uzbeks, while the unique grammatical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-10 - [12] and phonetical features of the Uzbek language as well as the modern Uzbek culture reflect the more ancient Irani roots of the Uzbek people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-Iranica - [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-11 - [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-12 - [14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#_note-13 - [15]
So what. The period described in the article was a pre Stalinist when nationalism was encouraged by the Soviet authorities. You fail to realize that early Soviet authorities were trying to pose themselves as very "nationalism friendly." Lenin called Imperial Russia the "prison of the nations" he encouraged national revivals in the world. Check for example his famous "Appeal to the Muslims" Soviet Russia also abolished all the colonial epoch priveleges that Russia had everywhere in the world. Do you know what country recognized Soviet Russia first? Afghanistan.
It were the Soviets, who created nationals autonomies in the former Russian empire and encouraged education and development of national languages and cultures.
All that policy had been conducted during all the 1920th. Stalin didn't really get the power until around 1930 and his repressions didn't start well until 1933.
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.
Masov desicribed in those parts exactly this period. Stalin didn't have his power at that time and he didn't repress anybody yet.
Perhaps it will also be a discovery for you that in Central Asia most of the ruling elite were locals.
After the Uzbekistan was created artificially in 1920th it was ruled by the local Uzbek communist elite. In 1930th the repressions started, but the policy of the Uzbekization didn't stop and was encouraged by the local Uzbek communist party elite.
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: alish
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 15:58
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....! |
Posted By: alish
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 16:17
Sarmatbek, How about Russia, do you think russian nationalism is better than bashkirs', or chechens' you know that??? In fact, if no russian interference , there even wouldn't be tajik government, which never existed.... Tajiks are very minor in fact and lives only in a few cities and some mountain areas... and there was no uzbekization.... still all tajiks accept themselves as tajiks and speak tajik language and there are tajik schools, and tajik publications in Uzbekistan.... but unfortunately it's quit oppisite in tajikstan... how about tajikiztaion of uzbeks which still going on .... do you know that... obviously not... does it work?, this kind of "ization" stuff never worked, and doesn't.... you are reading too much books and making your decisions in a phylosophical level out of reality.... |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 17:15
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 18:12
Look Alishbek.
I'm against extreme nationalism of any kind. And I don't think Russian nationalism is better than any other. Please, understand that.
I also don't think that Tajikization is in any regard better than Uzbekization. But if we want to have a fair discussion, we should evaluate all the points of view or at least try to be objective. There is no strictly Black vs. White in history. Uzbeks were not always perfect, not were the Tajiks, neither Russians.
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. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 18:25
Also Basmachi movement was driven primarily by the anomosity towards foreign invaders i.e. Bolsheviks (let's don't foreget that officially Bokhara was not a part of the Russian empire and local ruler was able to keep his own administration and even limited armed forces) and also religious senses. Strict anti Islamic policies in some part of CE of Bolsheviks gave rise to the protests let by the local religious leaders.
Pan-Turkism was actually a part of thinking of a small group of Central Asian intellegentia at that time, but definetely, not of the general part of the population.
Then Pan-Turkism got some input during the first years of the Soviet rule and then was crushed down by the Stalinist policies. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 18:42
Dear Alish,
I have to disagree with that. I'm afraid there were only Iranic in CE cities in the time of Alexander the Great. Though they were not Tajiks, they were called Sogds. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: alish
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 19:02
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 ! |
Posted By: alish
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 19:07
Are you sure about iranic - persian speaking nations, and their ancestors are tajiks, is that what you wanna say? Saks, massagets, ' Spetamen', are they sort of persianic, or iranic people? honestly i am not very good at genetic investigations.... |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 19:36
|
doublepost ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 19:45
Ofcourse they do, anybody can add a source from any book or journal.
Anybody can distort what is written and find a source written somewhere which can be interpreted to support their views.
Wikipedia is not a reliable or definitive source regarding such matters.
I clearly stated that it was during the Stalinist era that the mass crimes were comitted.
The early Soviets was not a Russian Empire, they were fighting against it. The Pan-Turkists/Jadids were a reactionary movement by the Tatars to Russian agression, their ideas spread to Central Asia and the Ottoman lands. They realised that to gain power they must modernise, form unity and a pollitical block.
Their fight against the Tsars coincided with the Communists fight against the establishment. In these years of the Soviets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiya - korenizatsiya was the policy, all the ethnics of the Empire were percieved to by united by the ideology of Communism in which being Russian or anything else didn't matter. However, the Stalinist era marked a U turn, the Soviets became Russian, ethnics were percieved as a threat, divide and conquer was implemented, scholors and intellects of the different groups were either arrested, killed or exiled.
Many of those who suffered under this period are being restored as heroes today in Ozbekistan, for example Cholpon and Rauf Fitrat. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 20:20
|
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. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 20:55
Yes, but I mean that the sources themselves remain intact. You can add your own source. But you can't alter the content of the source was which cited there. I mean that those sources look fine, but not like Tajik nationalists' articles which you don't trust. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 21:13
Also a famous Pan-Turkist/Jadid was Sultan Galiyev who actually a part of the Communist Party helped set up the Muslim Socialist Comittee arguing that Socialism and Islam were compatible and that the two are more suited then the consumerist tendancies of Capitalism.
Unfortunately he also was accused of having Pan-Islamic and Pan-Turkic deviations and executed.
I wonder if Stalin had not been so harsh and a more liberal leader took over after Lenin which allowed these developments of Socialism for the various ethnic groups in the Soviet lands what could have been... it could be an interesting topic. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 21:19
|
Yes, I also wonder what would happen. It's interesting indeed, Though the communists even before Stalin had commited a lot of terrible things. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|