| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Kyrgyz - Uzbek relations
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Kyrgyz - Uzbek relations

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2010 at 21:39
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
 In Baltic states Russian ethnic minorities are frequently sufferening from nationalist policies in discrimination. Almost all the Russians, for example, have left Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. There were also attempts of attacks against Russians during the recent unrest in Kyrgyzstan.
Russians has chance go to the Russia, why do need live on the other's land?Russian govt has much money to get back all these migrant Russians, it's better for all.China forcedly stopped migration of the Xinjang Kazaks to Kazakstan, maybe feared of Kazakstan become much stronger?It's different!
If Russia give back all Turkic land /Tatarstan,Bashkirstan etc./ then the relation would be more better, by now Turkic don't invade Russian land, don't going to invade.It's the main reason of this conflict.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2010 at 23:01
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

There were, in fact, clear ethnic divisions between Central Asians before the Russian conquest. Kazakhs, Kyrgyzes and Turkmens were already different. There was no "Uzbek" nation. But the population was clearly divided between the ruling class of nomadic origin called "Kypchaks" who, basically, the same people with Kazakhs and the subdued population of "Sarts" who were mostly bilingual (in Turkic and Farsi (Tajik)) sedentary population and farmers. The Soviets abandoned Kypchaks-Sart dillema and created the "unified" nation of Uzbeks. So, the Soviet role, was rather "unifying." Their "mistake" was the creation of those artificial borders between different "republics." But again, nobody could envision that the "republics" could one day become independent.

As about the recent bloodshed in Osh. It looks very much like it was organized by Maksim Bakiev (Kurmanbek Bakiev's son) and the reachest man in Kyrgyzstan.  He hired Tajik militants from Tajikistan who were shooting both Uzbeks and Kyrgyzes provoking the disorder... A digusting plan showing how low the Bakievs value their beloved "compatriots."


Please note the detailed explanation of the term "Sart":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sart

It meant different things to different people, but to Kyrgyz/Kazakh, it means settled farmers, regardless of language they speak.

Todays Kazakh, Kyrgyz and Turkmen are designation of domain where the nomads lived, Kazakhs are steppe nomads, Kyrgyz mountain nomads and Turkmen desert (karakum) nomads. But historically Kyrgyz and Turkmen are old ethnicities and designations. Kazakhs are a post mongol new confederation of tribes that includes, Turkmen, Kyrgyz and Mongol tribes among others, unified under Chingisid Khans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hordes_of_the_Jochid_Ulus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Shaybani
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu%27l-Khayr_Khan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_Khanate

So Kazakh is more of a political term than ethnic, all Kazakh clans were part of Kazakh Khanate, a political entity.

The present day Uzbek ethnic group first took shape under Timurids with its capital in Samarkand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_dynasty

and later under Chingisid Shaibani Uzbek khans:

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/baburnama.htm

Kipchak is an ancient linguistic group of turkic languages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipchak_language

Here is a more detailed explanation of origin of Uzbeks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks

Two excerpts from above:

"The modern Uzbek language is largely derived from the Chagatai language, an Eastern Turkic language which gained prominence in the Timurid Empire. The position of Chagatai (and later Uzbek) was further strengthened after the fall of the highly Persianized Timurids and the rise of the Shaybanid Uzbek Khaqanate that finally shaped the Turkic language and identity of modern Uzbeks, while the unique grammatical[18] 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/Chagatai_Khanate

"Within a few generations of Shaybani Khan's death, the Uzbek state broke up into three major khanates based in Bukhara, Khiva, and Kokand until the early 19th century. The Russian Empire eventually infiltrated Central Asia and the Khanates were annexed to the empire during the mid to late 19th century. Until 1924, the bulk of the settled Turkic population of Russian Turkestan, who were of very heterogeneous descent, were known as Sarts by the colonial authorities, and only those groups speaking Kipchak [citation needed] dialects who had arrived in the region with Muhammad Shaybani Khan were called 'Uzbeks'. In 1924, when the new Uzbek SSR was created, the Soviets abolished the term 'Sart' and decreed that all settled Turkic speakers and many Iranic speakers would henceforth be known as Uzbeks. As such, the current term 'Uzbek' includes many more peoples than the historical 'Uzbek' identity.[25] Uzbekistan, under Russian and then later Soviet administration, became multi-ethnic as populations from throughout the former Soviet Union moved (or were exiled) to Central Asia."

So Russians really did not create an Uzbek nation, but rather expanded the definition of the Uzbek term to include more people such as the "Sart" settled farmers, many of whom were persian speakers, that decided to switch to Uzbek language and lose any persian identity and later intermarry with original Uzbeks.

Russians under Soviet Union, created a large entity, where many ethnics lived together and shared resources in harmony under Marxism/Leninism. The downside was that it de-emphasized Islam and almost abolished it, since it was a competing ideology. The Romanov empire on the other hand had a policy of explicit support of Islam and sponsoring of the clerics to control the population through this subtle method of using religion for its own favor. As a result of the removal of Islam under communism, which the Arab Khilafa, Seljuk Turks and Chingisid Mongols successfully used to unify the varied ethnic groups under imperial rule, the cohesive glue and bond between ethnics built over a 1000 years were reduced and too much emphasis on ethnic research and some divide and rule resulted in further division between ethnics. The result of which we are reaping now, as unifying Islam is no longer as strong as it was and unifying state of marxism/communism is also gone, what we are left with is a stronger sense of ethnic nationalism, further exacerbated by the ethnic majority based nation states, the five stans.

This is what I called disruption due to external intervention and colonial rule, which are always negative for any region of the world. There is no way to justify occupying a foreign land, there is no altruistic civilizing excuse, it is always about domination and exploitation of resources, which ends badly for the local people, who have to continue to pay, long after the colonial master removes itself from the scene.






Edited by eventhorizon - 18 Jun 2010 at 23:34
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 21 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1357
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2010 at 23:31
Another question: how distant are the Kyrgyz, Uzbek, and Kazakh languages?
They all belong to the Kypchak dialect. Can they understand each other without translation?
Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2010 at 23:40
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

Another question: how distant are the Kyrgyz, Uzbek, and Kazakh languages?
They all belong to the Kypchak dialect. Can they understand each other without translation?


Kyrgyz and Kazakh belong to Kipchak group, original Uzbek language of the historic Shaibani nomadic Uzbek people was Kipchak, not todays Uzbek language, please see above post for detailed explanation about todays Uzbek language, which is a mix of Sogdian/Iranic and Turkic, shaped first under Chingisid Mongol Chagatai Khanate (source of Uighur and Karakhan influence), then Mongol Timurid dynasty and then finally under Chingisid Mongol Uzbek Khanate and its successor states of khanate of Bukhara, Khiva and Kokand.


Edited by eventhorizon - 18 Jun 2010 at 23:43
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 00:28
Those who think cultural difference are fictional should check the youtube more often, the level of ethnic hatred there is ugly and real.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 00:47
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Those who think cultural difference are fictional should check the youtube more often, the level of ethnic hatred there is ugly and real.
 
Al-Jassas


But not very representative.  If you had people who were against ethnic hatred on there making comments on the need for unity and friendship then you would struggle to find the hatred.  Haters are always more vocal.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 01:22
Which is exactly my point that ethnic differences are not fictional since if they were there wouldn't have been such a hateful minority to begin with.
 
Plus this isn't a new thing, Kyrgyz are called "kherkhez" in Arab historical accounts and were always a pain in the side of governors of those distant provinces. Their relations (and those of their brothers now called Kazakhs) with the sedentary population of what is now Uzbekistan have always been tough and full of turmoil. Ferghana valley was sacked several times by Turkic nomads since the 8th century. 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 04:02
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

This might be a little bit off topic, but what exactly are the cultural differences between the Kyrgyz and Uzbeks?
Well. Instead of going into detailed explanation.
 
Let's say... You probably have a perception of Mongolian nomadic culture and Iranian sedentary culture, right?
 
So, the differences between Kyrgyz culture (they would be equal to Mongols in our hypothetical) and Uzbek culture (that obviously resembles Persian) are roughly the same...
 
Other than that both peoples speak related Turkic languages and have the same religion. But still the above difference puts a very stong seal on their ethnic character.
 
Also, in terms of religion, Kyrgyzes are very relaxed, they don't take Islam seriously at all, unlike Uzbeks, who are much more serious (but also still "relativery" because there is no at all such an Islamic piety in the former Soviet Central Asia as anywhere else in the Islamic world)...
Thank you for the simple explanation, Sarmat.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 04:17
Originally posted by Commaench Commaench wrote:

Russians has chance go to the Russia, why do need live on the other's land?Russian govt has much money to get back all these migrant Russians, it's better for all.China forcedly stopped migration of the Xinjang Kazaks to Kazakstan, maybe feared of Kazakstan become much stronger?It's different!
If Russia give back all Turkic land /Tatarstan,Bashkirstan etc./ then the relation would be more better, by now Turkic don't invade Russian land, don't going to invade.It's the main reason of this conflict.
What kind of nonsense is that?  Why do people have to leave their native lands if they were born in Central Asia? It's their native land. Russian government doesn't care about those Russians. And, generally speaking, they are respected in Central Asia.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 04:23
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

Another question: how distant are the Kyrgyz, Uzbek, and Kazakh languages?
They all belong to the Kypchak dialect. Can they understand each other without translation?
 
In fact, Uzbek is in not a Kypchak group language. It belongs to Qarluq group. Kyrgyz sometimes classified as a Kypchak language sometimes is distinguished as a separate Altaic language.
 
Generally, all three people can understand each other when speaking on some basic topics.
 
But Kyrgyz and Kazakh are much closer to each other than to Uzbek.


Edited by Sarmat - 19 Jun 2010 at 04:43
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 04:30
Originally posted by eventhorizon eventhorizon wrote:



So Russians really did not create an Uzbek nation, but rather expanded the definition of the Uzbek term to include more people such as the "Sart" settled farmers, many of whom were persian speakers, that decided to switch to Uzbek language and lose any persian identity and later intermarry with original Uzbeks.
 
Wiki articles are generally are very good source but not always flawless. There is a question of semantics whether the Russian created or "expanded" the Uzbek ethnicity. The fact however, remains that the Uzbeks as they exist now were not such before the Soviet rule.
A nomadic component of "Uzbeks" as the term used in the wiki article cited was used interchangeable with Kypchaks while Kazakhs were also called "nomadic Uzbeks" in some sources.
Of course, the Russians didn't take the word "Uzbek" out of nothing. But the coherent nation that they started to call "Uzbek" didn't exist before.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 04:37
Originally posted by eventhorizon eventhorizon wrote:


Kyrgyz and Kazakh belong to Kipchak group, original Uzbek language of the historic Shaibani nomadic Uzbek people was Kipchak, not todays Uzbek language, please see above post for detailed explanation about todays Uzbek language, which is a mix of Sogdian/Iranic and Turkic, shaped first under Chingisid Mongol Chagatai Khanate (source of Uighur and Karakhan influence), then Mongol Timurid dynasty and then finally under Chingisid Mongol Uzbek Khanate and its successor states of khanate of Bukhara, Khiva and Kokand.
Uzbek language is largely based on Qarluq dialect of Turkic. It started to shape even before Mongols and Timurids. "Chagatai" is just a name that was applied to Qarluq interchangeably, because the speakers of Qarluq were mainly living in the domain "Ulus" of Chagarai khan, the son of Genghiskhan who was ruling over the largest part of today's Central Asia and Chinese Xingjiang.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 21 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1357
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 05:27
During the Russian Empire, did nations such as the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, and Uzbeks call themselves as such, or did they call themselves different names?
I remember reading a Russian source written at the time of the Napoleon Wars that described the "Kyrgyz" as a nomadic people divided into 3 hordes, living on the borders with the Sedentary Kazan Tatars, raiding the Kalmyk for cattle and the Russians for grain..... it was obviously referring to the "Kazakhs"!
Chechens and Azeris referred to as "Tatars"...., and not once was the word "Uzbek" mentioned.
Turkmen, or Turcoman, was indeed mentioned and it referred to the same people as what we call Turkmen today, as the source claimed that the Ottoman Turks were a branch of Turkmen.

Most of these nations were obviously divided into independent tribes. Did they have any consciousness during the 19th century that they belonged to a larger nation of "Kazakh", "Kyrgyz", or "Turkmen"?

Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 05:34
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by eventhorizon eventhorizon wrote:


Kyrgyz and Kazakh belong to Kipchak group, original Uzbek language of the historic Shaibani nomadic Uzbek people was Kipchak, not todays Uzbek language, please see above post for detailed explanation about todays Uzbek language, which is a mix of Sogdian/Iranic and Turkic, shaped first under Chingisid Mongol Chagatai Khanate (source of Uighur and Karakhan influence), then Mongol Timurid dynasty and then finally under Chingisid Mongol Uzbek Khanate and its successor states of khanate of Bukhara, Khiva and Kokand.
Uzbek language is largely based on Qarluq dialect of Turkic. It started to shape even before Mongols and Timurids. "Chagatai" is just a name that was applied to Qarluq interchangeably, because the speakers of Qarluq were mainly living in the domain "Ulus" of Chagarai khan, the son of Genghiskhan who was ruling over the largest part of today's Central Asia and Chinese Xingjiang.


Yes, good post, it looks like we are going back further in time in recorded history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karluks

What is interesting is that Yenisei Kyrgyz origin is much further in the east if you look at the map in above link, which is around todays Mongolia. After defeating Uighur empire, they moved in closer to Karluk domain. Kyrgyz then supposedly moved south in their current location, after Mongol expansion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyz

What is not clear is that if the Mongol described above includes Kara-Khitai or Kidan mongol speakers, who came before Chingis to establish their Central Asian Kara-khitai empire, when their Liao state was defeated by Jurchen (Tungusic predecessors of Manchu's north of Korean peninsula):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara-Khitan_Khanate

I think this part of the world is quite unique in its rich history starting with Iranic speakers, some of whom were Scythian nomads and others probably became sedentary over time and then the waves of successive asiatic nomadic migrations and interplay and intermixing of these population groups, giving rise to today's ethnic groups. It shows that historical continuity matters, history is very much a part of the present, religion is just one layer of it that changes with time and the importance of which also goes up and down depending on times and situations.


Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 06:25
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

During the Russian Empire, did nations such as the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, and Uzbeks call themselves as such, or did they call themselves different names?
I remember reading a Russian source written at the time of the Napoleon Wars that described the "Kyrgyz" as a nomadic people divided into 3 hordes, living on the borders with the Sedentary Kazan Tatars, raiding the Kalmyk for cattle and the Russians for grain..... it was obviously referring to the "Kazakhs"!
Chechens and Azeris referred to as "Tatars"...., and not once was the word "Uzbek" mentioned.
Turkmen, or Turcoman, was indeed mentioned and it referred to the same people as what we call Turkmen today, as the source claimed that the Ottoman Turks were a branch of Turkmen.

Most of these nations were obviously divided into independent tribes. Did they have any consciousness during the 19th century that they belonged to a larger nation of "Kazakh", "Kyrgyz", or "Turkmen"?

Yes, these 3 names were used and famous before and during the Russian Imperial rule. There was an embarrasing mistake of calling Kazakhs as Kyrgyz-Kaisaks, while Kyrgyzes proper were called Black or Kara Kyrgyz to distinguish them from "Kyrgyz-Kaisaks."
 
The mistake was due to the curious incident. In the 18th century a Kazakh embassy was visiting Sankt-Petersburg with a tributary mission. A Sankt-Petersburg official newspaper was desperately trying to publish something about the distinguished guests from the remote Central Asia and translated a passage from a book of the Dutch Travaler Nikokai Korneliusson Vitzen who according to Peter the Great's task was assigned with the task of collecting the information about the Central Asian peoples. His book included both correct information about Kazakhs and also Enisean Kyrgyzes. However, shortsighted Sankt-Petersburg journalists translated the wrong passage about Kyrgyzes instead of the passage about Kazakhs. Due to that infamous publication and notorious Russian imperial beraucracy that "had to follow the official publications" no matter what, poor Kazakhs were labaled "Kyrgyzes" for the next 2 centuries, until the Soviets restored their real name in 1920th.
 
So, both Kazakhs and Kyrgyz names were used before. Kyrgyz is a very ancient ethnic name. Kazakh has been used since  the 15th century and actively from the 16th century. Turkmen has been used at least from the 11th century. It is correct, that Ottoman Turks originate from the migrant Turkmen-Oguz tribes. There are in fact still "Turkmens" living in Iraq, Iran, Syria and even some nomadic Turkmen tribes in Eastern Anatolia.
 
But indeed the use of Uzbek was somehow limited. It was used interchangeably with "Kypchaks." And the ruling class of sedentary Central Asia prefered to call themselves Kipchaks, sometimes by the name of their own clan like "Mangyt" or "Barlas" and rarely "Uzbek." But starting from the 19th century "Uzbek" was expanded to all the sedentary and semi-nomadi population of Central Asia that had been called like that before.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 06:29
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

During the Russian Empire, did nations such as the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, and Uzbeks call themselves as such, or did they call themselves different names?
I remember reading a Russian source written at the time of the Napoleon Wars that described the "Kyrgyz" as a nomadic people divided into 3 hordes, living on the borders with the Sedentary Kazan Tatars, raiding the Kalmyk for cattle and the Russians for grain..... it was obviously referring to the "Kazakhs"!
Chechens and Azeris referred to as "Tatars"...., and not once was the word "Uzbek" mentioned.
Turkmen, or Turcoman, was indeed mentioned and it referred to the same people as what we call Turkmen today, as the source claimed that the Ottoman Turks were a branch of Turkmen.

Most of these nations were obviously divided into independent tribes. Did they have any consciousness during the 19th century that they belonged to a larger nation of "Kazakh", "Kyrgyz", or "Turkmen"?



Sarmat is probably better qualified to answer this, but I will add my 2 cents:

I think in Russian empire, the Kazakh, Kyrgyz and Turkmen knew themselves by these names, because these are already well established ethnic group by that time, only in the case of Uzbek, the group identification was expanded by Russians much later during Soviet times.

There was a confusion about Kyrgyz and Kazakh, which shows here, the Kazakh term was not used earlier by Europeans, I think Kazakh and Kyrgyz were lumped together and known as just Kyrgyz. The raiding party with 3 arms or Zhuzhes (elder near Ferghana, middle near semireyche/mongolian border and younger near Caspian) would definitely be Kazakhs. There is a more narrow definition of mongol hordes and their transformations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hordes_of_the_Jochid_Ulus


Chechens are not at all Turkic, purely Cuacasian tribe and language, Azeri's are a similar local Caucasian+Iranic people, but with a Turkic oghuz ruling class, where the Turkic language diffused following elite dominant diffusion method, AFAIK, just like it happened in today's Turkey among a much more diverse and mixed population of local people, which was the core of Ottoman empire.

Turkmen's originated from Oghuz Turks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmen_people

Ottoman founders were Oghuz, but the term Oghuz and Turkmen are used interchangeably sometimes, although they are not the same. Oghuz is a much larger group of which Turkmen is just one branch. When people of Russian Turkmenistan were called Turkmen, the term Turcoman was used to define other Oghuz outside Turkmenistan, such as the Turkic ruling class in Azerbaijan that later turkified the local Iranic/cuacasian population.

I think most Central Asian considered themselves Muslims first and foremost, before the Russian colonial rule, although they were well aware of their indigenous ethnic origin and larger Kazakh nation (3 zhuzhes), Kyrgyz forty tribes and Turkmen tribes around Karakum desert as well. But consider these old nomadic societies, their life style and education level, mostly they received an Islamic education and not much else formal education, whereas the tribal ruling class were well aware of their clan and tribal structure from oral carry over from one generation to the next. The current level of nationalism is very much a product of Romanov/Soviet anthropological research and educational system that propagated these ethno-nationalistic divisive ideas.

Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanism was an opposing idea that attempted to unite the diverse Turkic and Turanic culture, but it has become quite discredited, because of its fantastic claims and Nazi type racial overtones. But that is another story altogether, as they say.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 06:42

Until the early 19th century different Turkic dynasties dominated North Caucasus (Golden Horde, Nogays, Crimean Tatars), likewise indigenous Caucasian tribes were culturally under very strong Tatar influence (Tatar was a lingua franca in the region and all Caucasian languages have a significant pool of Turkic vocabularly, there were also large pockets of Turkic groups who vere organically incorporated into Caucasian tribes like Karachai, Balkars, Kumyks, etc. who are Turks and speak Tukic languages). That's why the outside Russian observers started to label both Caucasians (like Chechen and Circassians ("Circassian" is also a Turkic word BTW)) and local Turkic tribes as "Tatars" also given that the outlook and customs of all of them were very similar...

Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 07:10
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/world/asia/19memo.html

No one knows what will happen next in South Kyrgyzstan, how do you bring the Uzbeks back to Osh and rebuild their lives, who will give them protection?

I have heard that Karimov's secret agents are active in most Uzbek areas in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, but it seems they have missed this one badly, or was it deliberate (I doubt it).

Aside from Manas base and Kant base, US and Russian jockeying for influence, there are other regional issues, the biggest of which is water sharing, the Syr Darya river originates in the glacier mountains of Kyrgyzstan and flows through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, it used to end in Aral sea, but it does not even reach there, as the water is used for irrigation to produce wheat in Kazakhstan and cotton in Uzbekistan.

Kyrgyzstan is vulnerable not just as a transit point, but also because it has a small population and it has something that both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan need, water, and perhaps hydro-electric power from this same water.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0619_central_asia_linn.aspx

Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 22:59
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

What kind of nonsense is that?  Why do people have to leave their native lands if they were born in Central Asia? It's their native land. Russian government doesn't care about those Russians. And, generally speaking, they are respected in Central Asia.

Ivan, no one even ur Slavic Poland, Ukraine don't like Russia because of this.It's nonsence native nations like Chechens&Siberians considering that foreighners,band on their homeland.Russians &Russian govt supporting neonazis by giving them too less sentence and without trying arrest.
These russians must go without trying rebuild Soviet Union, many of them still accusing last Soviet govt 4 collapse of Soviet Union.Baltic countries has reason to dislike Russia after Lithuana, Latvia lost northern half of Belarus to Slavs, Russian massacre and Finland, Estonia lost Finnic land  from White Sea to Kursk, Saratov: Karelia, Komi, Mordov, Mari, Udmurt, Moskow, St.Ptb.


Edited by Commaench - 20 Jun 2010 at 00:17
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2010 at 02:47
I'm not "Ivan." Don't advise here who must how and where, Mr. Stalin.  And this stupid hate propaganda that you're trying to disseminate here is not welcomed on this forum.
 
Watch your language!


Edited by Sarmat - 20 Jun 2010 at 03:12
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2010 at 05:47
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/world/asia/20kyrgyz.html

Ethnic Kyrgyz mayor of Osh denies that Kyrgyz army or police were involved in the massacre, another Kyrgyz lady claims that Uzbeks did this to themselves, so they could blame the good kindhearted Kyrgyz.

To be fair, there were Kyrygz victims, I suppose the Uzbeks did try to protect themselves, some even may even have perpetrated violence in the heat of the moment.

But this is very far from being over, it is probably just the beginning of the end of the Kyrgyz state, that has lost all legitimacy of its right to exist.
Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2010 at 06:07
My appeal to Mr. Karimov, here is an idea that you can use. You do not need to send in the armed forces, but you can do something else:

- select a few thousand men as obervers from your civilian government and give them one satellite phone each
- ask Kyrgyz govt. permission to send them to affected areas in Kyrgyzstan
- if govt. permission is given then good, if not given, just send them in anyways, they can just walk over the open border entry points
- set up control centers to receive constant feedback calls from the observers and monitor their location
- these observers should reach all affected Uzbek communities and provide status update, every 30 minutes
- if they do not call in within designated time, then that means the contact was lost
- if lost contacts cannot be revived, with new person sent it, then designate that as a problem community

It is possible to send in unarmed civilian obervers, if the Kyrygz have nothing to hide, they should have no objection.

Lets put the ball on Kyrgyz court and see what they do next and act from there. And for Uzbek armed forces, this might be a good time to get rid of this joke who will not take care of your own people, you definitely deserve better than this idiot.

Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2010 at 08:25
Is it really Karimov's duty to protect citizens of another state even though they share the same ethnicity?  Karimov is the president of Uzbekistan not the leader of the Uzbek people.  Kyrgyzstan's Uzbeks are citizens of Kyrgyzstan as much as the Kyrgyz are and the state has the duty to protect all their citizens.  I think your appeal should include asking Karimov to remind the Kyrgyz state of their duty to protect their citizens irrespective of whether they form the majority population or the minority.  Interference should only be considered if the Kyrgyz authorities request assistance or are unwilling to protect them.

From what I gather this is a Kyrgyz v Kyrgyz problem as much as an Uzbek v Kyrgyz problem.  Afterall Bakiev was overthrown by northern Kyrgyz and the problems in the south are among southern Kyrgyz relations with local Uzbeks, stoked by Bakiev and his clan probably aided or encouraged by foreign parties in the new great game.  I would like to know how Kyrgyz in the north of the country view the clashes in the south.

The Kyrgyz authorities should when everything calms down, look towards changing the traditional roles carried out in the mixed areas.  Traditionally the Uzbek have controlled trade and the Kyrgyz have controlled the administrative and security sectors.  Kyrgyz should be encouraged to learn about trade and commerce and Uzbeks should be involved more in the politics and policing of the areas.  Efforts should be made to remove the current differences, i.e. Kyrgyz/Uzbek and foster shared common identities such as being Oshians or Jalabadians and so on. 
If the Kyrgyz in the south were involved in trade they would have too much to lose to want to wreck the place and likewise if the Uzbeks were involved in policing then the riots would of been less likely to succeed.

Edited by Serpent Mist - 20 Jun 2010 at 08:28
Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2010 at 10:41
Originally posted by Serpent Mist Serpent Mist wrote:

Is it really Karimov's duty to protect citizens of another state even though they share the same ethnicity?  Karimov is the president of Uzbekistan not the leader of the Uzbek people.  Kyrgyzstan's Uzbeks are citizens of Kyrgyzstan as much as the Kyrgyz are and the state has the duty to protect all their citizens.  I think your appeal should include asking Karimov to remind the Kyrgyz state of their duty to protect their citizens irrespective of whether they form the majority population or the minority.  Interference should only be considered if the Kyrgyz authorities request assistance or are unwilling to protect them.

From what I gather this is a Kyrgyz v Kyrgyz problem as much as an Uzbek v Kyrgyz problem.  Afterall Bakiev was overthrown by northern Kyrgyz and the problems in the south are among southern Kyrgyz relations with local Uzbeks, stoked by Bakiev and his clan probably aided or encouraged by foreign parties in the new great game.  I would like to know how Kyrgyz in the north of the country view the clashes in the south.

The Kyrgyz authorities should when everything calms down, look towards changing the traditional roles carried out in the mixed areas.  Traditionally the Uzbek have controlled trade and the Kyrgyz have controlled the administrative and security sectors.  Kyrgyz should be encouraged to learn about trade and commerce and Uzbeks should be involved more in the politics and policing of the areas.  Efforts should be made to remove the current differences, i.e. Kyrgyz/Uzbek and foster shared common identities such as being Oshians or Jalabadians and so on. 
If the Kyrgyz in the south were involved in trade they would have too much to lose to want to wreck the place and likewise if the Uzbeks were involved in policing then the riots would of been less likely to succeed.


Welcome to this forum.

The problem started out as a Kyrgyz vs. Kyrgyz problem, but Bakiev clan decided to attack and victimize a scape-goat and divert the problem to a Kyrgyz vs. Uzbek one while at the same time reduce the North vs. South division among Kyrgyz, and it seems they have succeeded in their effort with flying colors. But that point is moot now, who started it is immaterial, there is at least 2000 Uzbek and probably less than 50 Kyrgyz dead.

Can you please let us know your definition of:

"if the Kyrgyz authorities ...... are unwilling to protect them"

When this massacre and attempted genocide just happened, how can we call this Kyrgyz authorities "willing" to protect its citizens, where there is multiple eye-witness accounts describing Kyrgyz army and police being involved in shooting unarmed Uzbeks and breaking down barriers to Uzbek areas, so the Kyrgyz mob could go in to do their thing?

The Uzbeks saw and found no protection from their so called state "kyrgyz republic", as they were slaughtered by the majority Kyrgyz. They still cannot trust the Kyrgyz authorities as they stay barricaded, where no food or other aid can reach them. The wives and children cannot think of going back and start rebuilding the charred ruins of their world, because what if the killing, raping and burning starts again, who is going to protect them?

And please don't tell me about sanctity of Westphalian nation states, I have a whole thread dedicated just to prove that these legal entities called nation states are obsolete in meeting human needs, if you have the time, please stroll through it:

http://www.allempires.net/forum/historical-continuity-large-systems-and-future_topic125023_post37398.html#37398


Edited by eventhorizon - 20 Jun 2010 at 10:57
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2010 at 11:11
Originally posted by Serpent Mist Serpent Mist wrote:

Is it really Karimov's duty to protect citizens of another state even though they share the same ethnicity? 
 
It's not Karimov's duty. But Karimov should he willing so may create serious problems for the new regime in Kyrgyzstan, that's the reason for that strange "gratitude."


Edited by Sarmat - 20 Jun 2010 at 17:07
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2010 at 11:35
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/20/kyrgyzstan-uzbekistan-ethnic-civil-war
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/16/kyrgyzstan-killings-attempted-genocide-uzbeks

I have a gut feeling that this will end badly for the Kyrgyz, I just don't want to see more blood shed and war, but that is what is brewing there, as everyone is sucking their thumbs and sitting on their behind.


Edited by eventhorizon - 20 Jun 2010 at 12:02
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3144
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2010 at 14:34
Who get the most benefit from Kyrgyz vs Uzbek conflict?
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2010 at 15:58
Originally posted by Suren Suren wrote:

Who get the most benefit from Kyrgyz vs Uzbek conflict?


That's a very good question, in a crime, the natural thing to do is to look for motive and beneficiary. Unfortunately this whole tragedy is a tragi-comedy of errors. Here is why:

US, Russia, China all want stability in this volatile region for their own interests, which are never the same. US wants its base, Russians don't want to loose influence in a former Soviet republic, which was also a part of Romanov empire and China wants to sell its cheap goods to this and other neighbor republics and wants to transport energy and minerals from the region, but it can do the same from Kazakhstan as well. But as an immediate neighbor with common borders, China hopes to increase its profile, in a slow but deliberate manner.

So no big outside power would instigate this kind of barbaric attack which could easily go out of hand and it did.

That leaves us Bakiev and his clan, which just lost power and wanted to foment trouble to show the incompetence of this new regime and perhaps carry this trouble to the north part of the country to unseat the new interim govt., but there are not many Uzbeks in the North and Northern Kyrgyz are richer and more civilized than the Southern Kyrgyz, so the fire did not catch there. But it was devastating in the South, because the Uzbeks were rich and successful, while some Southern Kyrgyz had govt. jobs in police, army etc., but not much money. So when the riots started (with the alleged instigation) in Osh and Jalalabad, the Uzbek fought back to defend their homes, life and property, some even may have been involved in reprisal attacks, but then the Kyrgyz mob came from the villages and with Army and police help (who are their kin) tipped the balance in favor of the Kyrgyz, who created a mayhem, shooting, burning, killing, raping and looting whatever possessions the Uzbeks had in their homes, stores and warehouses. Kyrgyz like to drink, vodka is popular with the poor and unemployed, I have heard many Kyrgyz were drunk while committing these crimes.

I do not believe the Kyrgyz wanted to commit a planned genocide, Bakiev's probably instigated to create an ethnic riot which eventually ended up being a virtual genocide of the Uzbek community in the hand of the impoverished Southern Kyrgyz, while the Northern Kyrgyz watched in disgust without being able to do much.

Now the Bakiev clan that instigated this massacre, will have no place to go, hopefully there will be justice and hopefully all these criminals, along with the ones who took part will be punished. So in the end everyone has lost from this tragi-comedy of errors.

To answer the question, there was no beneficiary, all involved were losers from this incident.

Now having said that, there were some powers responsible for how Kyrgyzstan ended up where it is today. Akaev was much more benign figure, typical of Northern Kyrgyz, but US supported quarters helped unseat him in the Tulip revolution in 2005 and thus opened the gate for Bakiev and Southern Kyrgyz to have a taste of power in politics and state bureaucracy. I am not sure who was involved in it, may be some fanatic democracy junkies from the Bush camp, even Soros's open society initiative could be responsible, definitely there are tons of democracy related NGO's in Bishkek with EU and US funding. Russians did not like it a bit, to lose in their own backyard, they upped the game with offering money and loans to Bakievs and tried to buy him off. Now Bakiev, being the gangsta Southern Kyrgyz he is, he bargained to get the best deal from the Russians, but in the end betrayed them, by bargaining with the US, and getting as much as possible from the US as well. So this latest revolution to remove Bakiev was sweet revenge for Russia for stabbing it in the back after taking its money.

So it is great game redux, but all lost in the end, as both US and Russia put money in the wrong hand, which found its way in funding the instigation of this grotesque massacre and tragedy.

Speaking of money in wrong hands, this reminds me of another example where money went to wrong hands when Ottoman empire was broken up. The mixture of oil money and Wahabi extremist creed is still wreaking havoc on the face of this planet, while their semitic half european kins create a perpetual zone of madness trying to transplant them back in their neighborhood.


Edited by eventhorizon - 20 Jun 2010 at 16:31
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2010 at 16:17
Sarmat, this word much related for you,if you can see.don't play in role of good man.here're don't need russian useless propaganda.Read all ur post.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2010 at 17:00
Why should I read my post, Reck?  What propaganda?  Wake up from your dreams, the only person who tries to spread propaganda of intolerance here is you. And this is not the first time you're doing this.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.