Chinese occupation of our land is just one issue; they are also trying to change our history. This is evident when you consider figures like Mahmud of Kashgar, who proudly identified as Uyghur when he wrote Divanu Lughat-it Turk in the 11th century. Similarly, Yusuf Has Hajib, through his work Kutadgu Bilig, and Kutluk Bilge Khan, founder of the Uyghur Khaganate, were not shy about their Uyghur identity. Contrary to what some commentators suggest, these historical figures and many others were proud to call themselves Uyghurs, long before modern nationalism. This demonstrates the deep-rooted and enduring nature of our identity, despite attempts to distort our history.
Chinese chronicles carry numerous statements on the linguistic and ethnological closeness or identity of the many Hunnic tribes for example: - Xin Tangshu 新唐書 (217: 6111) says that the ancestors of Huihe 回紇 (Uiġurs) are the Xiongnu 匈奴 (Huns).
So, what is the point? Chinese historical sources also record that the Xiongnu were descended from the Xia Dynasty. This is the oldest historical record of the Xiongnu.
Hunnic tribes did not leave any of their own written historical records in the first place. The written records of Huns or nomadic people of the steppe were recorded by the Chinese and other civilizations.
A generally fair enough analysis, with some interpretations of events that carry a slant. The one point I will mention is that, while the Uyghurs could be interpreted as partly descending from the Tocharians and Saka, so too could any and all ethnicities in that region, including the Han and Hui Chinese; and so too could the Turkic and Han and Hui ethnicities be interpreted as descending from each other. Such is the way these ethnic makeups work for ethnicities that have shared much of their history for millennia.
@@kasyakyoubfgamindikisboratTarim Basin was heavily Buddhist before the Muslim invaded and forced their culture, religion, and customs. It was the silk road route that Buddhism was first transmitted to China proper during 1st-3rd centuries. Because of this invasion, East Asian countries can't really help the Uygurs, because deep down we know we can't integrate Muslims. We feel automatic connection and sympathy with the Tibetans, but Uygurs culture is more Iranic and Central Asian despite speaking Turkic.
@@yo2trader539 Uyghur culture is Iranic because of mixing with Iranic tribes in Xinjiang. Their language is Karluk branch, Karluks were Turkic but also had some iranic ancestors
Uyghurs are ethnically Siberian Turks like Altais and Khakas but they got Karlukized by Chagatai Khanate. And again, most of the people who speak Kipchak today spoke Siberian Turkic (Orkhon like languages) at the past, but their languages were forcibly changed by the Golden Horde.
@@papazataklaattiranimam Uyghurs are united those Buddhist from Mongolia and Karakhanids of South Xinjiang (Kashgar, Atush, Ghulja, Yarkand) this are also Uyghurs even they are Karluk
Much of history is inherently incomplete and inaccurate, with substantial gaps throughout. The narratives are often shaped by the perspectives of kings and conquerors. For example, the historical accounts of the same region can vary significantly between Chinese and European perspectives. History's accuracy is contingent on the historian reconstructing it. A less scrupulous historian may take shortcuts for personal gain or other motives. Ultimately, the present and future hold greater importance than the sometimes imperfect reflections of the past.
Mate you are wrong about Sakha or as known Scythians were Eastern Turkic people as DNA admitted as the ancient Persian and Greek historians so as Chinese
