The only real point of contention I really saw in that thread is about whether the Uyghurs are Turkic or not. Due to the social construction of ethnicity it’s probably something that cannot really be proved one way or the other. All the thread says is that it’s fascists who claim the Uyghurs are Turkic and that the Uyghurs were oppressed in the distant past by Turks at war and that the ethnic group is partially assimilated due to time and generations. Is the claim that Uyghurs are not Turkic really all that important to the question of whether or not there’s a cultural genocide in the first place? From the outside, it seems unnecessary to me to even mention it. If there’s anyone here who’s willing to put this claim in more context I’d appreciate it.
The claim to establish the basis for the separatist movement in Xinjiang, which was picked up and promoted by the State Department is that of East Turkestan, which is essentially separating Xinjiang from China and creating an Uyghur/Turkic ethnostate (one that makes no sense because Uyghurs are also not solely Muslim, they don’t form one homogenous group, and the province has long been the home of many different ethnicities. Uyghurs themselves are primarily descended from the Qigour/Ouigour people, who are not Turkic whatsoever).
The basis of the East Turkestan claim is advanced by the likes of the World Uyghur Congress, who gives themselves an authoritative name but is really just an arm of the NED with ties to other far-right organisations that fight for the same dream. Here is a page on the WUC website clearly laying it out:
Deconstructing the claim that Uyghurs are Turks or sufficiently related to them to give a foundation to the East Turkestan claim (which is part of the broader Pan-Turkism ideology, a fascist idea) is primordial to deconstructing the whole narrative around the “genocide”. But you’re right that we glossed over the overall importance and context of why this matters, we assumed that everyone would already aware that the US was a proponent of the East Turkestan theory and could have made the links clearer.
The USA of course is hoping that by funding, training, and promoting a separatist group, there will be an independent Xinjiang who will sell their oil rights to them and cut China off from the belt&road land route.
Edit: note that the contentious point was about the Turkic/Turk/Turkish wording. I think all of us involved in that discussion on Twitter speak English as a second language, so perhaps some connotations on the differences between these three words escaped us during the discussion.
The imperial motives are always economic. It should be glaringly obvious for all socialists at this point, but for some reason plenty of socialists in imperial core countries still think the anglosphere is making these accusations from a place of moralism.
The only real point of contention I really saw in that thread is about whether the Uyghurs are Turkic or not. Due to the social construction of ethnicity it’s probably something that cannot really be proved one way or the other. All the thread says is that it’s fascists who claim the Uyghurs are Turkic and that the Uyghurs were oppressed in the distant past by Turks at war and that the ethnic group is partially assimilated due to time and generations. Is the claim that Uyghurs are not Turkic really all that important to the question of whether or not there’s a cultural genocide in the first place? From the outside, it seems unnecessary to me to even mention it. If there’s anyone here who’s willing to put this claim in more context I’d appreciate it.
The claim to establish the basis for the separatist movement in Xinjiang, which was picked up and promoted by the State Department is that of East Turkestan, which is essentially separating Xinjiang from China and creating an Uyghur/Turkic ethnostate (one that makes no sense because Uyghurs are also not solely Muslim, they don’t form one homogenous group, and the province has long been the home of many different ethnicities. Uyghurs themselves are primarily descended from the Qigour/Ouigour people, who are not Turkic whatsoever).
The basis of the East Turkestan claim is advanced by the likes of the World Uyghur Congress, who gives themselves an authoritative name but is really just an arm of the NED with ties to other far-right organisations that fight for the same dream. Here is a page on the WUC website clearly laying it out:
Deconstructing the claim that Uyghurs are Turks or sufficiently related to them to give a foundation to the East Turkestan claim (which is part of the broader Pan-Turkism ideology, a fascist idea) is primordial to deconstructing the whole narrative around the “genocide”. But you’re right that we glossed over the overall importance and context of why this matters, we assumed that everyone would already aware that the US was a proponent of the East Turkestan theory and could have made the links clearer.
The USA of course is hoping that by funding, training, and promoting a separatist group, there will be an independent Xinjiang who will sell their oil rights to them and cut China off from the belt&road land route.
Edit: note that the contentious point was about the Turkic/Turk/Turkish wording. I think all of us involved in that discussion on Twitter speak English as a second language, so perhaps some connotations on the differences between these three words escaped us during the discussion.
The imperial motives are always economic. It should be glaringly obvious for all socialists at this point, but for some reason plenty of socialists in imperial core countries still think the anglosphere is making these accusations from a place of moralism.
Thanks for the additional context.