dogu-turkistan-sempozyumu

FREEEAST TURKISTAN SYMPOSIUMHowever, it is not possible to think that this region remained without a namethroughout history. If this country had been a part of China, it would not havebeen reasonable to call it “Xinjiang” during late 19th century. The truth is that theChinese invaders required a new name for this territory and could find no othername than “Xinjiang” for this region. This name does not carry any historical,geographical or cultural meaning other than that derived from a European styleof colonialism. In the early 19th century, with the rise of mechanical age andcapitalistic expansionism the way was opened the way for colonialism. In the sameway that China dealt with Turkistan by classifying the country that was targetedfor exploitation as a ”community without history”, a “primitive community” anda “prehistoric community”, the Europeans used the same terms to open the wayfor their colonization of Africa and Asia. All these terms were terms fabricatedby those who looked upon colonies as “virgin soils” which have secret, valuabletreasures and untapped resources, with no colonization or rights of their own.The Chinese also use the same method in its treatment of Eastern Turkistan. Infact, such a name did not merely fall from the heavens. The Chinese had earliersuccumbed to the exploitation of western and eastern powers, and was influencedby the culture of colonialism that was introduced to their country by the French,English and Japanese.When we look at ancient languages, it can clearly be seen that China has noright to this region. In the books of Muslim historians, geographers, linguists andother foreigners, Eastern Turkistan is mentioned frequently by name and thisregion and its geographic properties are identified. For example, this region hasbeen identified as the “lands beyond the river” or the “land of Turks”.These lands have been mentioned in detail in famous works by Arab andMuslim historians and travelers. We can mention some of these authors and theirworks here: Yakut el-Hamevi (1178/1228) Mu’cemu’l-Buldan; Ahmed el-Belazuri(d.891) Futuhu’l-Buldan; Shemsuddin ed-Dimeshki (d.1327) Nuhbetu’d-DehrFi Acaibi’l-Berri ve’l-Bahr; Ibn Cerir et-Taberi (838-923) el-Umem ve’l-Muluk;Mes’ud Ebu’l-Hasen (896-957) Murucu’z-Zeheb and Meadinu’l-Cevher; AhmedYa’kubi (d.897) Kitabu’l-Buldan; Muhammed Ebu’l-Kasim b. Havkal (d.977) el-Mesalik ve’l-Memalik; Ebu’r-Reyhan el-Biruni (973-1048) el-Asaru’l-Bakıye Ani’l-Kuruni’l-Haliye; Ahmed el-Kalkashendi (1355-1418) Subhu’l-A’sha; Ibnu’l-Esirİzzuddin (1160-1234) el-Kamilu Fi’t-Tarih. When we examine works written in312