dogu-turkistan-sempozyumu

FREEEAST TURKISTAN SYMPOSIUMis the homeland of the Eastern Turkistan people.” It is also stated that: “Sincethe beginning of the 20th century, a minority separatist group, consisting ofsome blind, fanatic and radical religious groups, has come up with some theoriesregarding Eastern Turkistan; but these theories have no foundation and are merelythe invention of former colonialists. According to this propaganda, EasternTurkistan was an independent nation from ancient time and the people living inthe region have a history that goes back nearly ten thousand years.” 4This narrative, which admits that this region was Eastern Turkistan andnot part of Chinese territories, is in contradiction of every fact ever recordedby historians throughout Islamic history. It refers to these historians as formercolonialists and claims that it is they who fabricated the name Eastern Turkistan.However, not only does this book ignore the history behind the name “Xinjiang”,it also ignores the ethnologic meaning of the word, which in and of itself provesthe historical facts that are denied in this book. Also, in the summary of the bookthat was published in the People of China Journal, no explanatory information isoffered about the issues which are referred to as fabricated assumptions about thehistory of the region, a history which in fact dates back ten thousand years.Moreover, this summary provides no evidence of what it describes as “theoriesthat have no foundation and (which are) the invention of former colonialists,” norare the names of the persons given, merely claiming that “these are Muslims”.However, China has only referred to this region as “Xinjiang” in the recent past,how then can they dare to invent a history that dates back for ten thousands yearsthat is connected to them? In this case, who is actually inventing something outof nothing and who is using unsupported evidence? Which narration is moreplausible; that of China or that of Turkistan?Another strange issue about the Chinese narration is that it ignores thendozens of historical revolutions and the millions of victims in Turkistan since theManchu dynasty started to rule over the region. This narration also presents theprotests and revolts of the Uyghur in the 20th century as separatist movements.However, the struggle between China and the Russian czars over the region isnot seen as a part of the history. While the book mentions the ethnic groups thatformed the society in the region, China knows very well that the 7,500,000 Chinesecitizens of Han ethnicity have been forced or tricked into immigrating into the314