4 ms·

Based on TFA, it's pretty clear that Uyghurs and Western Europeans are far more similar than either is to Han Chinese. By appearance, which more-or-less means g

Based on TFA, it's pretty clear that Uyghurs and Western Europeans are far more similar than either is to Han Chinese. By appearance, which more-or-less means genetics. And by religion and culture, both Uyghurs and Western Europeans having been Judeo-Christian for centuries. But anyway, it'd be better if Xinjiang were independent. Or even if it had been occupied by Russia, as the "stans" and Mongolia were. But so it goes. And arguably, if there were some area, occupied by China, that was populated largely by Jews or Slavs or some other Western European ethnic group, they'd be just as screwed as the Uyghurs are. Edit: If someone actually has some evidence that TFA is wrong, and that Buddhist Han Chinese were historically the majority in Xinjiang, please share. Everything that I've found online does seem to agree.

thaumasiotes 8y ago
> both Uyghurs and Western Europeans having been Judeo-Christian for centuries ...what? I'm pretty sure that if there is any sense in which the Uyghurs were Judeo-Christian for centuries, they were also Buddhist for centuries in the same sense. But I tend to doubt the premise.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Yeah, OK. I was being sloppy. I should have said "Judeo-Christian-Muslim". But really, Muslims and Christians are both basically mutant Jews. Same God. And ~same older prophets. Muslims actually credit Christ as a prophet. Just not the latest one. Pretty much like Mormons, with Joseph Smith. And all of that is totally different from old-school Han. Where do you get Buddhist from? TFA says: > The most populous ethnicity in Xinjiang was Uyghur, though the scales have tipped as more Han Chinese have moved into the province. Uyghurs are Turkic in ethnicity and language, look very different from Han Chinese, and are typically Muslim.
  - byw 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Xinjiang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Xinjiang
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Huh. If that article is accurate, then China actually has a better claim on Xinjiang than the Uyghurs do. So is it accurate? Edit: But actually, China's behavior in the 18th and 19th centuries was worse. > Xinjiang consists of two main geographically, historically, and ethnically distinct regions with different historical names, Dzungaria north of the Tianshan Mountains and the Tarim Basin south of the Tianshan Mountains, before Qing China unified them into one political entity called Xinjiang province in 1884. At the time of the Qing conquest in 1759, Dzungaria was inhabited by the Dzongar people, a steppe dwelling, nomadic Mongol-related ethnic group who practiced Tibetan Buddhist. Meanwhile, the Tarim Basin was inhabited by sedentary, oasis dwelling, Turkic speaking Muslim farmers, now known as the Uyghur people. They were governed separately until 1884. The native Uyghur name for the Tarim Basin is Altishahr. > In the Dzungar genocide the Manchus exterminated the native Buddhist Dzungar Oirat Mongolic speaking people from their homeland of Dzungaria in Northern Xinjiang and resettled the area with a variety of different ethnic groups. > The Qing "final solution" of genocide to solve the problem of the Dzungar Mongols, made the Qing sponsored settlement of millions of Han Chinese, Hui, Turkestani Oasis people (Uyghurs) and Manchu Bannermen in Dzungaria possible, since the land was now devoid of Dzungars. Damn.
      - thaumasiotes 8y ago
        > Uyghurs are Turkic in ethnicity and language, look very different from Han Chinese, and are typically Muslim. The name "Uyghur" goes back quite a long way, and originally refers to a Turkic group. Modern Uyghurs are only tenuously related to the ancient Uyghurs -- as noted, modern Uyghurs are visually distinct from the Chinese. Modern Uyghurs are a recent hybrid population between a Turkic group and a Caucasoid (Iranian?) group. Compare the Mongols, who do look like Chinese. I assumed you might be talking about some remote point in time during which the ancient Uyghurs were Jewish or Christian; that is where I got "also Buddhist" from. > If that article is accurate, then China actually has a better claim on Xinjiang than the Uyghurs do. > So is it accurate? If you're going to start talking about what things have been like in the region for centuries, this is kind of an embarrassing question to have to ask. > But actually, China's behavior in the 18th and 19th centuries was worse. What did China do in the 18th and 19th centuries? The Manchu emperor conquered Xinjiang over the objections of his Chinese officials, who took the position that it wasn't part of China and he had no business invading it. If (1) Germany conquered Poland, and then (2) Germany conquered France, why would France hold a grudge against Poland?
  - invalidOrTaken 8y ago
    Obligatory clarification---Mormons also believe Christ was the Son of God.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Ah. Good point. And Muslims obviously don't. So Mormons are far closer to mainstream Christians. Except for the part about Joseph Smith getting briefed by some angel (Moronai, if memory serves). Martin Luther etc never made such claims.
sangnoir 8y ago
> both Uyghurs and Western Europeans having been Judeo-Christian for centuries. Uyghurs are Muslim - which is most definitely not "Judeo-Christian" but is Abrahamic. The term "Judeo-Christian" is effectively erasure of Islam (intentional or not) and is typically used to suggest cultural distance between Islam and Judaism/Christianity
- mirimir 8y ago
  Yes, I was wrong in saying "Judeo-Christian".
chillacy 8y ago
This comment is sort of funny because the term Judeo-Christian gained prominence is the 1940s as a political tool to unite christians and jews in America (forget all that historical baggage you guys are on the same team!), and here you're essentially doing the same. Maybe good intentioned, but still similar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian#Inter-group_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian#Inter-group_re...
- mirimir 8y ago
  I'm not trying to unite anyone. I was just pointing out that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are closely related, and only distantly related to anything Han Chinese.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    Fun fact, that's how you unite people :) For more details see RCT, which specifies that ingroup bonding accompanies outgroup hostility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory
nradov 8y ago
The proper term for the union of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is "Abrahamic religions". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
- mirimir 8y ago
  Sure. So I just made up a new term. Whatever. The point is that they're both derivatives of Judaism. Along with some minor offshoots of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And a bunch of others that haven't survived.
- exolymph 8y ago
  The "proper term" doesn't matter much when everyone already understands what the person was saying.

thaumasiotes 8y ago

> both Uyghurs and Western Europeans having been Judeo-Christian for centuries ...what? I'm pretty sure that if there is any sense in which the Uyghurs were Judeo-Christian for centuries, they were also Buddhist for centuries in the same sense. But I tend to doubt the premise.

mirimir 8y ago
Yeah, OK. I was being sloppy. I should have said "Judeo-Christian-Muslim". But really, Muslims and Christians are both basically mutant Jews. Same God. And ~same older prophets. Muslims actually credit Christ as a prophet. Just not the latest one. Pretty much like Mormons, with Joseph Smith. And all of that is totally different from old-school Han. Where do you get Buddhist from? TFA says: > The most populous ethnicity in Xinjiang was Uyghur, though the scales have tipped as more Han Chinese have moved into the province. Uyghurs are Turkic in ethnicity and language, look very different from Han Chinese, and are typically Muslim.
- byw 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Xinjiang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Xinjiang
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Huh. If that article is accurate, then China actually has a better claim on Xinjiang than the Uyghurs do. So is it accurate? Edit: But actually, China's behavior in the 18th and 19th centuries was worse. > Xinjiang consists of two main geographically, historically, and ethnically distinct regions with different historical names, Dzungaria north of the Tianshan Mountains and the Tarim Basin south of the Tianshan Mountains, before Qing China unified them into one political entity called Xinjiang province in 1884. At the time of the Qing conquest in 1759, Dzungaria was inhabited by the Dzongar people, a steppe dwelling, nomadic Mongol-related ethnic group who practiced Tibetan Buddhist. Meanwhile, the Tarim Basin was inhabited by sedentary, oasis dwelling, Turkic speaking Muslim farmers, now known as the Uyghur people. They were governed separately until 1884. The native Uyghur name for the Tarim Basin is Altishahr. > In the Dzungar genocide the Manchus exterminated the native Buddhist Dzungar Oirat Mongolic speaking people from their homeland of Dzungaria in Northern Xinjiang and resettled the area with a variety of different ethnic groups. > The Qing "final solution" of genocide to solve the problem of the Dzungar Mongols, made the Qing sponsored settlement of millions of Han Chinese, Hui, Turkestani Oasis people (Uyghurs) and Manchu Bannermen in Dzungaria possible, since the land was now devoid of Dzungars. Damn.
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      > Uyghurs are Turkic in ethnicity and language, look very different from Han Chinese, and are typically Muslim. The name "Uyghur" goes back quite a long way, and originally refers to a Turkic group. Modern Uyghurs are only tenuously related to the ancient Uyghurs -- as noted, modern Uyghurs are visually distinct from the Chinese. Modern Uyghurs are a recent hybrid population between a Turkic group and a Caucasoid (Iranian?) group. Compare the Mongols, who do look like Chinese. I assumed you might be talking about some remote point in time during which the ancient Uyghurs were Jewish or Christian; that is where I got "also Buddhist" from. > If that article is accurate, then China actually has a better claim on Xinjiang than the Uyghurs do. > So is it accurate? If you're going to start talking about what things have been like in the region for centuries, this is kind of an embarrassing question to have to ask. > But actually, China's behavior in the 18th and 19th centuries was worse. What did China do in the 18th and 19th centuries? The Manchu emperor conquered Xinjiang over the objections of his Chinese officials, who took the position that it wasn't part of China and he had no business invading it. If (1) Germany conquered Poland, and then (2) Germany conquered France, why would France hold a grudge against Poland?
- invalidOrTaken 8y ago
  Obligatory clarification---Mormons also believe Christ was the Son of God.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Ah. Good point. And Muslims obviously don't. So Mormons are far closer to mainstream Christians. Except for the part about Joseph Smith getting briefed by some angel (Moronai, if memory serves). Martin Luther etc never made such claims.

sangnoir 8y ago

> both Uyghurs and Western Europeans having been Judeo-Christian for centuries. Uyghurs are Muslim - which is most definitely not "Judeo-Christian" but is Abrahamic. The term "Judeo-Christian" is effectively erasure of Islam (intentional or not) and is typically used to suggest cultural distance between Islam and Judaism/Christianity

mirimir 8y ago
Yes, I was wrong in saying "Judeo-Christian".

chillacy 8y ago

This comment is sort of funny because the term Judeo-Christian gained prominence is the 1940s as a political tool to unite christians and jews in America (forget all that historical baggage you guys are on the same team!), and here you're essentially doing the same. Maybe good intentioned, but still similar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian#Inter-group_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian#Inter-group_re...

mirimir 8y ago
I'm not trying to unite anyone. I was just pointing out that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are closely related, and only distantly related to anything Han Chinese.
- chillacy 8y ago
  Fun fact, that's how you unite people :) For more details see RCT, which specifies that ingroup bonding accompanies outgroup hostility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory

nradov 8y ago

The proper term for the union of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is "Abrahamic religions". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions

mirimir 8y ago
Sure. So I just made up a new term. Whatever. The point is that they're both derivatives of Judaism. Along with some minor offshoots of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And a bunch of others that haven't survived.
exolymph 8y ago
The "proper term" doesn't matter much when everyone already understands what the person was saying.