Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

April 5th, 2006

Tags

Comments

21 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Talking Turkey

Bilingual education spreads Chinese to ethnic minorities
03/29/2006
Kazuto Tsukamoto, The Asahi Shinbun

BAXKERAM KANT, China—At an elementary school on the outskirts of an oasis town along the Silk Road, Chinese authorities are carrying out a unique cultural experiment. In one of the classrooms of this white, one-story school house, 47 students in the fourth grade are reading their “national language” textbook in a loud voice. The language is Chinese. However, all of the children are members of the Uyghur ethnic minority. At home, they speak the Uyghur language. Located in the town of Baxkeram Kant in the western part of the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region, the school is attracting notice as a pioneering bilingual school, in which children of a minority people learn subjects not in their own language but in Chinese.

The last thing anyone in Xin’jiang needs is a “cultural experiment” courtesy of the Chinese authorities. And while the leftist Asahi tries to bill this as progressive “bilingual education,” many would call it nothing short of cultural imperialism or Hanification. But that’s not the main point of this post.

All of the 532 students are Uyghur, an Islamic people whose ancestors are said to have come from Turkey.

Not quite. Yes, Uyghurs are Turkic. But the Turkic peoples came from Central Asia, probably near the Altaic Moutains stretching between eastern Kazakhstan and Mongolia. What we now call Turkey is geographicalyl referred to as Anatolia or Asia Minor and was once the sparring grounds between Greeks and Persians. Turks have been in Turkey barely a millenia, and the Turks in western China have been there markably longer than the Turks in Anatolia.

SIDENOTE: A friend notes that if the Uyghurs, who’ve been in western China for at least 2,000 years, really did come from Turkey, they would be Greek.

Comments to this entry

Nathan Hamm
April 5, 2006
7:43 am
So I guess that the folks at Asahi most certainly don't subscribe to the notion that Japanese is a distant relative of the Altaic languages, suggesting perhaps common (extremely distant) ancestors with Uyghurs who, of course, came from Turkey (and certainly not the Altay).

Actually this kind of reminds me of how Turks will, at times call other Turkic languages things like "Uyghur Turkish" or "Kyrgyz Turkish" as if they all trace back to the "true" form of the language as spoken in Turkey.
Curzon
April 5, 2006
8:04 am
So I guess that the folks at Asahi most certainly don't subscribe to the notion that Japanese is a distant relative of the Altaic languages


Something tells me that this theory would be way, way over their heads.

"Uyghur Turkish" etc is weird, but "Uyghur Turkic" is kosher, no? Turks (from Turkey!) I've spoken to were all well familiar that their ancestors had migrated to the bridge between Europ and Asia from the steppe.
R. Elgin
April 5, 2006
8:52 am
The Chinese would never try to bury another culture -- the same Chinese, who are wise and honorable men . . .
snow
April 5, 2006
10:17 am
A theory in linguistics claims that Korean (and Japanese) comes from Altaic, which ties it to Turkic, Mongolian and Finnish of all things!? If it's true, they are distantly related and there appear to be few connections left nowadays. I hear that Korean and Japanese are very different as well, though Koreans say it is quite easy to learn Japanese (much easier than English). I'm not sure why this is, though I've heard it claimed that it has to do with similar sentence structures and the use of Chinese Hanja and Chinese vocab, in common.
Matt
April 5, 2006
11:21 am
Excellent. I love geography/history/linguistic posts like these.
Dan tdaxp
April 5, 2006
1:34 pm
I'm not sure why this is, though I've heard it claimed that it has to do with similar sentence structures and the use of Chinese Hanja and Chinese vocab, in common.


I've heard the same. King of similar to the way it is somewhat easy to learn Spanish for English speakers because English absorbed so much Latin vocab (even though English does not come from Latin).
Nathan Hamm
April 5, 2006
5:08 pm
I've also heard that it is fairly easy for Japanese and Koreans to learn Turkic languages because they too are agglutinative and use subject-object-verb structure.

Snow, Finnish is part of the Uralic family, which is now considered to be distinct from the Altaic family. I'm not sure, but I think that it is believed that the similarities between these language families are due to convergence.

Curzon, "Uyghur Turkic" more or less makes sense, but I think it does suggest Uyghur is a dialect of a language called "Turkic." What the Turks in Turkey (and I'm mostly talking about Turkologists and certain folks in government) were trying to do was suggest that there really is only one Turkic language called Turkish and that everyone merely spoke dialects. There is a great deal of mutual intelligibility, but the languages certainly are distinct. Uyghur and Uzbek are essentially identical, but I was listening to Yakut last night and couldn't make out anything but an occasional word.
Jing
April 5, 2006
11:00 pm
I understand the Uyghurs migrated from western Mongolia into Xinjiang sometime after the 9th century and not from Turkey.
Nathan Hamm
April 6, 2006
12:55 am
Jing, the Uyghurs did migrate from Western Mongolia. After the Kirghiz destroyed the Uyghur Empire's capital in the Orkhon Valley in 840, the Uyghurs moved on to the Tarim Basin. I can't remember when exactly, but the ethnonym eventually disappeared and was revived in the last couple centuries. The people who are today's Uyghurs likely can trace back their ancestry to many more places than just the Mongolian steppes.
Mutantfrog
April 7, 2006
7:07 am
Jing and Nathan are correct. The ancestors of the Uyghur people had their own empire in the area somewhat north of Xinjiang, including at least the western part of Mongolia. Only after that empire fell did they settle down and become the oasis people we know today. Of course, there very well could have been some of them already living in the area before then, but it was not the center of their culture. The ancient cities in the Turpan Basin region are considered (at least according to Chinese historians) to have been built by Chinese colonists, not by the ancient Uyghur.
ckrisz
April 7, 2006
8:57 am
Because, you know, the last thing Uighur children need is to be able to communicate with the majority population in the country of their birth. Much better that they remain in glorious poverty. Also much better that we ignore their parents' wishes to learn Chinese so that they may better their situation and actually be able to speak with the government in order to gain access to vital services like medical care --- remember, you know imperialism is bad when guys who don't look like Curzon are doing it.
sun bin
April 7, 2006
9:46 am
So

1. Uyghur and present day Turkish are distant cousins, and not a branch from them
2. Uyghur came to Xinjiang only 1200 years ago, not 2000 years ago

My questions:
who are the people who lived in present day Xinjiang and Kazakhstan during West Han Dynasty (i.e. Da-wan) who were Han's vassal and allies against the Huns?
Did they vanished like the ancient Indians (of 2500BC)?
Nathan Hamm
April 7, 2006
8:13 pm
sun bin, both Uyghurs and Turks can count the Kok-Turks as a common ancester, so yes, they're cousins. And I think it's most accurate to say that Turks calling themselves Uyghurs settled the Tarim Basin 1,200 years ago. But, I bet that's probably what you meant.

During at least part of the West Han Dynasty, the Hsiung-nu controlled the Tarim Basin. But, the people who lived there were, I'm pretty sure, Tibetan and/or Iranian. They didn't exactly vanish--their fate is known. As steppe nomads moved in, they were forced out or assimilated into the new populations.
davesgonechina
April 7, 2006
11:12 pm
Nathan said: I've also heard that it is fairly easy for Japanese and Koreans to learn Turkic languages because they too are agglutinative and use subject-object-verb structure.

That's what I understand as well.

I blogged on this Mandarin lesson stuff and tried to pull together how this plays out in the wider context of education in Xinjiang, since I taught there:

http://silkworms.chinesetriad.org/?p=265

Basically I think the Chinese are somewhat well intentioned; bigwigs like Wang Lequan no doubt hope assimilation will reduce separatist dreams. But ckrisz has a point, there are real benefits that come with speaking the national language, not to mention poverty is a real problem.

Before the Uyghurs, you have the Yuezhi, the Xiongnu (or Hsiung-nu as Nathan said), the Wusun (who I haven't figured out yet), the Kushans, the Ruanruan, the Hepthalites, the Sogdians, the Sui and the Kok-Turks, almost all nomadic. Modern day Uyghurs are most likely the descendents of the mishmash that then intermarried with the historical Uyghurs, plus everybody else who has been there since (which during the Silk Road period was pretty much all of their neighbors, near and far). It's hard to tell which groups were obliterated and which were assimilated. These are groups that exist quite often in name only from surviving texts (written by others, like the Chinese), not through living history such as people or cultural relics. Nomads - can't be bothered to pick up a bloody pen.

My now-too-long-neglected Xinjiang Historical Atlas page roughly shows the areas occupied by each group up to 610 CE (just before the Uyghurs in 744):

http://silkworms.chinesetriad.org/?page_id=242

The Uyghur Kingdom from 744-840 had its capital on the Orkhon river, near the ruins of Karakorum, the later Mongol capital, in Mongolia - as Mutantfrog indicated.
davesgonechina
April 7, 2006
11:19 pm
BTW, there are some Uyghurs who claim they originate from Turkey - usually *coincidentally* fans of pan-Turkic nationalism. But it's also a function of a poverty of proper history in Xinjiang, due to the ideological suppression of Uyghur historical narratives, the majority of which these days are unsurprisingly nationalist. Take for example the story of the Fragrant Concubine, Xiangfei. The Chinese say she was a Uyghur princess whom the Emperor fell in love with and doted over, a marriage that united the Uyghur and Chinese people. The Uyghurs says she killed herself rather than be touched by the Emperor. Only one of these get published, and history often tends to be hyperbolic identity politics not reasonable fact. Xiangfei, in fact, isn't even confirmed as a real historical figure. This is one reason I take Uyghur activist groups (and Tibetans too) with a grain of salt.
Nathan
April 8, 2006
3:45 am
The Uyghur Kingdom from 744-840 had its capital on the Orkhon river, near the ruins of Karakorum, the later Mongol capital, in Mongolia "“ as Mutantfrog indicated.


Which is all the more reason for me to get around to posting the paper I wrote on political legitimacy on the Mongol steppe because it deals in part with why so many empires based in Mongolia put their capitals in the Orkhon river valley.
davesgonechina
April 8, 2006
7:23 pm
no kidding Nathan, you should post it. I'm keen to learn more about the Orkhon valley. The UNESCO site on it looks interesting:

http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=1081
bilinmeyen
April 29, 2006
11:36 pm
Well, I've never heard anyone claiming Uighurs come from Turkey. It's really weird, even funny!

"There is a great deal of mutual intelligibility, but the languages certainly are distinct."

Only mutual intelligibility?.. Sure, there's more! Call it "Turkish" or "Turkic" or something else, but the language is the same!

I want to add one thing... Yes, until today, the history was showing that Turkish people came to Anatolia 1,000 years ago! But, a recently it is approved that Hittites are Turks also. And, if it's true(there was proofs, as they said), Turks' existence in Anatolia began about 5,000 years ago!

Of course, the Turks came from Central Asia, and caused big results, it's well-known! But, Turks' history in Anatolia is much longer than we know!..
bilinmeyen
April 29, 2006
11:43 pm
Well, that "5,000 years ago" isn't only for Hittites, of course! With Hittites, it's shorter! But, like Hittites, there were some other nations mentioned and that "5,000" years are related to them. Sorry, I can't remember them all.
Elizabeth
April 30, 2006
7:56 am
I think that Nathan's got the most accurate posts on this one. A few Turkic languages are mutually intelligible (Kyrghyz-Uzbek), but I am certain that Uzbeks understand Turkish (and vice-versa) about as well as Swedes understand German. A lot of the mutually intelligibility also comes from the joint Muslim heritage which includes a lot of borrowed Persian and Arab words (as anyone who speaks Persian, Arabic, or Turkish will realize when he/she tries to read signs in any country with any of the above languages- none of which are related at all). It is interesting to note that Russians often find it easier to learn Uzbek, because it's an analytic language, than Tajik (more idiomatic), although Russian is definitely related to Tajik and not to Uzbek. So I'm not sure that ease of learning means anything to linguists.

I've read about this Finno-Uralic-cum-Altaic language family as well, but only in the context of theories trying desperately to link all languages to one single proto-language. I tend, therefore, to be slightly suspicious of this... if you do the one-through-ten test on these groups, you will find it difficult to compare them in the same way that even languages as diverse as Soghdian, Russian, and Romanian can be compared to English.
bilinmeyen
May 3, 2006
1:49 am
At last, the dialects of Turkish are as different as Mandarin and Cantonese.

As a native Turkish speaker: When you read Arabic or Persian you can understand only one or two words, but nothing else(though, there are many Arabic/Persian words in Turkish). But when you read Uighur/Uzbek you understand what does it mean, except from 3-4 words in a sentence. Even there are Uzbek message boards that have lots of Turkish members!

In one language, you notice similarities, in the other the differences!

And the little differences are normal, try to catch a Turkish person living in Germany! Though they watch Turkish TV programmes everyday and Turkish immigration to Germany began only a half century ago, it's sometimes very hard to understand what they say!

Not to mention, historically the founders of the Ottoman Empire (roots of today's Turks in Anatolia) are coming from Middle Asia and Kayi tribe and so historically the languages are coming from one root, too!