Regular readers of our blog will know well by now that I’m a regular complainer about the lack of solid facts, and that the discussion of Xinjiang can only be held on a secondary level, a discussion of perceptions and conceptions rather than of cold, hard facts. One of the best examples of this is the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, or ETIM, an entirely nebulous organization blamed by the Chinese government for almost all instances of violent unrest in Xinjiang, officially labelled as “terrorist” by the American government; a group that produces very little information about itself except for the occasional enigmatic video.
One of the things that has remained frustratingly vague is the CCP understanding of ETIM. Of course, one thing is clear, the ETIM almost always gets blamed or at least obliquely accused for unrest, discontent, and violence in Xinjiang. In that respect, the government is unequivocal. But where does the government think ETIM comes from? What does the government think about the ideology driving these shadowy bandits? What does the government want the people of Xinjiang to think about ETIM? These deeper questions cannot be answered by the infrequent reports that state agencies and Western organizations produce on the topic.
So imagine my surprise and intrigue when at a local bookstore I spied a series of small booklets, written in Chinese, collectively titled “Readers on the History and Current Situation of Xinjiang, China.” One of these booklets is titled The Origins and Development of East Turkestan Splittism. This, of course, is a fascinating opportunity to take a detailed glimpse into how the CCP conceives and understands the ideology behind discontent in Xinjiang, and how it wants the citizens of Xinjiang to accordingly perceive the situation.
And so for the interest of all readers and scholars out there, I’ve begun translating it. It’s a slow, painstaking process given my curse of inadequate Chinese ability, but even the little section I’ve managed to cram into English wording reveals a lot about how the CCP views the history of the region, and what kind of ideological manuveuring the government places on history as far back as the 6th century in order to legitimize its standpoints.
In a few days I’ll begin the first of what will hopefully become a serial translation of this booklet. Part One is titled “‘Pan-Islamic’ and ‘Pan-Turkic’ Thought”, and section one of Part One, which I’m almost done with, is called “The Origins of the Terms ‘Turk’ and ‘Turkestan.’” For now, here’s the introductory blurb, a single sentence that apparently is so important it is placed on an entire page all by itself between the table of contents and the beginning of Part One.
“泛伊斯兰主义”与“泛突厥注意”是19世纪下半叶形成的一种社会思潮，20世纪初传入新疆后，在特定的历史条件下，成为早期“东突厥斯坦”分裂主义的思潮基础。
“Pan-Islamism” and “Pan-Turkism” are social ideologies that took form in the second half of the 19th century and, under specific historical conditions, became the foundation for early “East Turkestan” splittist thought after entering Xinjiang at the beginning of the 20th century.
Now there’s a succint summary if I ever saw one. Stay tuned.
Comments 8
Sounds very interesting with there booklets. What is the Chinese title? And who is the writer/s? Is it the one called 东突厥斯坦分裂主义的由来与发展-中国新疆历史与现状简读本? There is also one called 中国新疆历史与现状 in several languages, but I have note read nay of them, only seen them online.
Posted 17 Jan 2009 at 9:48 pm ¶I’ll be looking forward to reading more of what the CCP knows, or thinks they know about the ETIM.
Posted 17 Jan 2009 at 11:44 pm ¶That’s the very one. The 中国新疆历史与现况简读本 appears to be a series with a lot of small paperback booklets, including one about the XPCC’s developmental plans for the region, I plan to collect them all (it’s like Happy Meal toys for Xinjiang followers). Can I ask you where you saw the multi-language 中国新疆历史与现况？
Posted 18 Jan 2009 at 1:32 am ¶I saw 中国新疆历史与现况 in German, Russian, French, Arabic, Japanese and Turkish on dangdang.com (当当). I’m currently not in China but will order a number of these booklets to see what they say. 当当 also had 当代新疆简史 by 党育林 and 张杰玺 (ed.) which could be interesting.
Posted 19 Jan 2009 at 4:48 am ¶There is an absolute tonne of literature published on this in Chinese, some of it available through Xinhua in Urumchi but much more coming out of publishers based in Beijing. Pretty much all of it is within the same framework that the ‘two pans’ (“双泛”)(Pan-Turkism & Pan-Islamism) were a response to the encroachment of western, capitalist imperialism into a previously unified region and which under the political stewardship of the CCP will die out as history teleologically marches its way to modernity and the unification of the motherland. Turkestan is then deemed a geographer’s curiosity (see the book you mentioned and the White Paper on Xinjiang) and not an accepted term. Be careful with the “东突” term because although it is used to refer to ETIM, it is also used to refer to any activities or ideas which run counter to this conception of Xinjiang’s place within the PRC.
As for ‘cold, hard facts’, good luck with that but i don’t think they are ‘out there’. What is interesting here is not the truth or falsity of it all but how these conceptions are used by states to manage identities into politically acceptable frameworks and how people’s identities have to maneuvre and construct their resistances often within these frameworks. For example, if you read Minkaohan blogs you’ll see few calls for separation but you’ll see many a government slogan pronounced with people calling for harmony, equality, and mutual respect as members of the multi-ethnic Chinese nation.
Posted 19 Jan 2009 at 10:15 pm ¶Yeah, I’ve translated the first and second sections of the first part of this booklet and what you’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head regarding the sort of agenda they’re setting out to accomplish. The writers that is. A lot of it has to do with the perhaps deliberate conflation of terms, such as the 东突 example you’ve just come up with. I’ll point it out more clearly once I post the first translation but another sloppy conflation that I’ve read is an artificial equivalence between the ethnic concept “Turk” and the Göktürk people, both of which are referred to as 突厥 in Mandarin. Having established an exact equivalence, the writer of the booklet goes on to say that since the Göktürk peoples ceased to exist as a political entity under that name, the term Turk (since the terms are the same in Chinese) ceased to have any connection with any reality whatsoever since then. It’s pretty sloppy thinking, easily turned on its head, since using the same logic one could easily say that since the Han Dynasty, from which the Han minzu takes its name, disintegrated too, the term “Han” as well no longer has any real currency anymore.
As for your second paragraph, that’s an overarching theme I’ve been laboring to establish over the course of my posts but if you want to jump straight the point, and let the proverbial cat of the bag, well, there you go! :)
Posted 20 Jan 2009 at 6:13 pm ¶Very interesting! I hadn’t thought out the signiificance of the 突厥 term in that way. Clearly it is being employed by the state to delegitimise alternative (non-chinese) conceptions of Xinjiang’s history. I came across this last night and thought of your post:
“东突”势力在新疆曾嚣张一时，但他们的民族分裂活动是完全失败的历史
(Pan Zhiping et al, 2008， The History and Current Situation of “东突”, p.146).
“For a while, “东突” forces were rising in Xinjiang but their ethnic separatist activities are a completely defeated history”. In other words counter to the unfolding of history in one direction towards a modern, singular China. The concerning aspect of this is of course that this then includes rather a lot of ‘activities’ and not just violent resistance but even thinking about history in certain ways. Non-Chinese （双泛）histories after all are the basis of separatism according to Mr Pan.
I look forward to reading more of your posts!
Posted 20 Jan 2009 at 9:30 pm ¶One should note the difference between 东突（东突厥斯坦） and 东土（东土耳其斯坦）, where the latter is more commonly used by exiles. According to a very non-scientific search on Google 东土 is roughly twice as common as 东突 on the web. The term 泛土耳其主义 is also used by some. This specific issue is mostly related to the use (or not) of Han Chinese and its characters. Other languages present other problems of definition…
Posted 21 Jan 2009 at 4:53 pm ¶