|
|
|
|
|
by contingencies
725 days ago
|
|
At a guess: China doesn't like any suggestion of border regions being independent in history, although they most obviously were. Case in point, early 20th century Xinjiang coin in the British Museum coin gallery cast in Uyghur without any Chinese whatsoever. |
|
Also, I'd be hesitant to call these "Uyghur". The Turkic migration didn't begin until the 6th-9th century. Most of Central Asia was still Indo-Iranian (more Iranian) until the Mongols and Turkic invasions and the slow assimilation of locals into Turkic speakers.
> early 20th century Xinjiang coin in the British Museum coin gallery cast in Uyghur without any Chinese whatsoever
Well Xinjiang in the 1700s-1911 was nominally Qing controlled. That's why it's called "Xinjiang" (new frontier) - it was conquered by the Qing and their allies during the Oirat Wars, but always had some limited form of protectorate designation many times in history.
And this is where the issue arises - the Qing Dynasty was multi-ethnic with Manchus, Mongols, Hans, Hakkas, Tibetans, Chaghtai (Turkic peoples that became Uzbeks and Uyghurs), Tajik, etc well represented.
If "China" is only a "Sino" or "Han" state, then minority identities and histories (which don't show any ethnicity in a positive light) are tampered with for political reasons.
There is no reason why PRC can't coexist ethnic identity with a "PRC" identity, and this was fairly common post-Mao to 2013.
Now you have towns being renamed from Aq Masjid to Tuanjie or Dutar to Hongqi, and traditional culture (which is heavily intertwined with Naqshabandi traditional) being Sinofied. Mahmud al-Kashgari is absolutely turning in his grave.