3 ms·

>Ӧmir was born to Uighur and Kazakh parents in Xinjiang, or formerly East Turkestan before the Chinese invasion of 1949 This is the first time I've seen the cl

>Ӧmir was born to Uighur and Kazakh parents in Xinjiang, or formerly East Turkestan before the Chinese invasion of 1949 This is the first time I've seen the claim that "East Turkestan" (as in the "country") actually existed before 1949. I realize that it could totally be that the history I learnt growing up deliberately omitted that part, and/or the definition of "countries" were more in wonton before the end of WW2. But could someone provide some creditable source to support that claim?

BeetleB 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_East_Turkestan_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_East_Turkestan_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_East_Turkestan_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_East_Turkestan_Republic Of course, it's Wikipedia, so you'll have to dig through its references.
- free_rms 6y ago
  So, 2 very small chunks of xinjiang broke away for a few years during WW2 while big parts of china were occupied by the japanese? Not really tracking with the tone of TFA's claims imo.
- fishywang 6y ago
  Thanks for the links. For the First, even Wikipedia warned that it lacks citations and verification, so I don't think it should be considered as a "creditable source". Also it's only a tiny portion of Xinjiang. For the Second, even if we consider it 100% true, it doesn't really support the original claim from that interview article, in several ways: 1. It's a small portion of Xinjiang, and the claim _implies_ that the whole Xinjiang was "formerly East Turkestan before the Chinese invasion of 1949" 2. The Second ETR was pro-communism, pro-Soviet, pro-CPC, and against the rest of Xinjiang that's under RoC control. In 1949 CPC won the civil war against RoC (KMT), took control of all of Xinjiang. So I don't see in anyway it could be claimed that China invaded ETR in 1949. One thing I don't understand is why do those condemn China's treatment of Uyghurs have to add the (likely dubious) claim of China invaded Xinjiang in 1949. It's not like doing a domestic (cultural) genocide is something "better" than invasion and genocide, so why add some dubious claim to your legitimate claim?
  - yorwba 6y ago
    > One thing I don't understand is why do those condemn China's treatment of Uyghurs have to add the (likely dubious) claim of China invaded Xinjiang in 1949. The best-organized Uyghur groups outside China are various separatist organizations, so they have a natural advantage at getting journalists together with eyewitnesses while putting their own spin on things. So it's not like they're adding a dubious claim to their legitimate claim, rather they've been making the same dubious claims all along and it's just now that a legitimate claim has been added that people are finally listening to them.

BeetleB 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_East_Turkestan_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_East_Turkestan_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_East_Turkestan_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_East_Turkestan_Republic Of course, it's Wikipedia, so you'll have to dig through its references.

free_rms 6y ago
So, 2 very small chunks of xinjiang broke away for a few years during WW2 while big parts of china were occupied by the japanese? Not really tracking with the tone of TFA's claims imo.
fishywang 6y ago
Thanks for the links. For the First, even Wikipedia warned that it lacks citations and verification, so I don't think it should be considered as a "creditable source". Also it's only a tiny portion of Xinjiang. For the Second, even if we consider it 100% true, it doesn't really support the original claim from that interview article, in several ways: 1. It's a small portion of Xinjiang, and the claim _implies_ that the whole Xinjiang was "formerly East Turkestan before the Chinese invasion of 1949" 2. The Second ETR was pro-communism, pro-Soviet, pro-CPC, and against the rest of Xinjiang that's under RoC control. In 1949 CPC won the civil war against RoC (KMT), took control of all of Xinjiang. So I don't see in anyway it could be claimed that China invaded ETR in 1949. One thing I don't understand is why do those condemn China's treatment of Uyghurs have to add the (likely dubious) claim of China invaded Xinjiang in 1949. It's not like doing a domestic (cultural) genocide is something "better" than invasion and genocide, so why add some dubious claim to your legitimate claim?
- yorwba 6y ago
  > One thing I don't understand is why do those condemn China's treatment of Uyghurs have to add the (likely dubious) claim of China invaded Xinjiang in 1949. The best-organized Uyghur groups outside China are various separatist organizations, so they have a natural advantage at getting journalists together with eyewitnesses while putting their own spin on things. So it's not like they're adding a dubious claim to their legitimate claim, rather they've been making the same dubious claims all along and it's just now that a legitimate claim has been added that people are finally listening to them.