Comments on: Review: James Millward, Eurasian Crossroads

By: tez

tez — Mon, 19 May 2008 01:44:31 +0000

I was wondering if Professor Millward would like to comment on the difference between Forbes’ view of the Republican period and that of Shinmen Yasushi’s? For that matter does Yasushi also differ from David Wang’s interpretation?

By: Porfiriy

Porfiriy — Tue, 06 May 2008 10:14:01 +0000

Booya, this is blog published by enthusiasts during spare time. The content speaks for itself, and stands to be corrected by anyone who has contrary information, just as the author of the book has done here, before your comment.

Keep in mind that an amateur blogging platform is the vehicle for the content here. If our writer published a critical review of Millward’s work in a published journal you can rest assured it probably wouldn’t be under a pseudonym. And if it was, you’d probably have every right to complain. Until then, you’ll just have to be comfortable with the fact that a lot of information on the internet will be published anonymously under aliases. Like your comments on our site.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Tue, 06 May 2008 08:17:32 +0000

to booya:

The contributors of this blog need not divulge their identity to you or any other readers. People in the know, including the author of the book being reviewed, are well aware of the identity of the person(s) publishing this blog.

Their credibility is not jeopordized in any way by remaining anonymous.

By: swan

swan — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:58:47 +0000

Hi,
Could you please tell me more about the chronicle of Shah Mahmud Churas or the Tarikh-i Kashgar. Can one get hold of them outside XUAR.

By: booya

booya — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:18:11 +0000

I understand that contributors to this blog might prefer to retain some anonymity, given that they appear to reside in Xinjiang, but in my opinion there are times when anonymity is unacceptable. Personally I find it quite distasteful to publish a critical review of a serious scholarly work without owning up to who you are.

By: James Millward

James Millward — Sat, 03 May 2008 11:11:14 +0000

Reviewer is right about Russian, but wrong about Chinese and Japanese secondary sources. I relied extensively on secondary sources in Chinese and Japanese, and the notes and bibliography reflect this. My treatment of the first ETR, for example, is largely based on Shinmen Yasushi’s excellent work, which revises Forbes’ interpretation quite dramatically. I used Uyghur sources in the section on Jaddidism in late 19th and early 20th c. Xinjiang, but not elsewhere, to be sure. Lots more for the rest of you to do!