Uighurs and turks are same?

i have read some history books which write uighurs separate from turks. But uyghurs are struggling for separate east turkistan. What is exact relationship between uyghurs and turks. Also uyghurs looks different fron central asian turks

They are part of the chagatay Turkic sub-group (southeastern Karluk group) like the Uzbeks so their languages will be more similar than with Turkish.  As for Ethnic differences they are more Turkic looking that Turkish Turks definately, again similar to Uzbeks.

Of course there are strong liks though between Uygurs and Turks

Well i'm talking mainly about language - Uygur language is south-eastern Karluk (Chagatay).  But ethnically maybe not so strong - Turkic blood is heavily spread out amongst the tribes, unlike languages.

Eretna was a Tatar beylik,İlhanlı(H�lag�) empire used Tatar Turk tribes to conquer Anatolia,they were schamanist.

The Chinese government don't think and operate as COmmunists, that much should be clear, its a government based on a combination of ethnocentric nationalistism; capitalism and covert imperialism. Ceding independence to the Uighurs will be an affront to this syncretistic ideology. I think the Uighurs will not get their independence (ever) because the Chinese government is actively pursusing a large scale demographic change in XInjiang that will make the Turks a very very small minority so they can build a case for occupying Xinjiang indefinitely.

 

http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/0003/0003_01_21.htm

 

 

 

Edited by Bulldog - 21-Jul-2006 at 19:12

Originally posted by Bulldog Eretna state in todays Turkey was Uygur Turk.     The dynasty's founder, Eretna, was an officer of Uighur (Uyghur) origin in the service of Demirtas, the Il-Khanid governor of Anatolia, who revolted (1326) against the Il-Khanid ruler Abu Sa'id and escaped to Egypt.   www.britannica.com/eb/article-9032880   Eratnaogullari principality had been the most important inheritor of the Ilhanli State in Anatolia. The State had survived for 53 years between the years of 1327-1380. Eratna Bey had been the general governor of Anatolia connected to Ilhanli State for eight years between the years of 1327-1335. He acquired independence in the year of 1335. However, he had to be submissive to the Mameluke State for 5 years between 1338-1343. From that date on, the state continued its independence. The capital city was Sivas in the beginning, but it was then moved to Kayseri. Just like all the other Anatolian Turkish states, Eretna State was the member of Sunnite-Hanafi sect. Eretna or Ertana Bey who was the founder of the State (original name was Ertene, but it has been cited with the form of �Aratna� in the Uighur texts) was not a Turkmen person; he was from Uighur beys in the service of Ilhanli State. His father, Cafer Bey had died in Kayseri. Various Uighur Turks had come to Anatolia through the Eretnaogullari principality.   http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/0003/0003_01_21.htm   My mistake,thanks.

There is no Qarluq sect, Qarluq and basmil were the later two to become part of Uyghur  outer eleven tribes. Chagatay Turkic is a meaningless term, to appease the Uzbeks so that the  so called Uzbek language not to be part of Uyghur language.  Actually south-eastern Turkic is classified as Uyghur Turkic which includes Uyghur and Uzbek by Lars Johansson.

Edited by barbar - 22-Jul-2006 at 10:40

All settled Turk peoples  - like modern Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Turks of Turkey, various Tatars (Kazan, Astrakhan, Sibir, Crimean, etc.), Caucasus Turks, Tuvans, Yakuts, etc., and even many non-Turkic peoples - Ukraininans, Iranians, Southern and Eastern Russians, Northern Chinese, Northern Indians, Balkan Bulgars, Romanians, etc. - all are results of mixing, metisation between Turkic nomads and local conquered settled peoples during many centuries of total military domination of the Turkic Steppe nomads on the periphery of the Great Steppe - great Eurasian belt between Danube river and Yellow sea. All these new mixed peoples  adopted all the settled culture of the local settled peoples. Sometimes Turkic language prevailed (in some distorted local dialectic form), sometimes - not.

Uighurs are mixtiure of Turkic nomads and local settled Iranian (Sogdians, Tajiks). Same settled culture. You can tell just from how they look that they are mixture of Kazakhs and Tajiks, or something like that.

Direct descendants of Turkic nomads ( medieval Kazakh-Uzbeks, medieval Uyghurs, so-called Tartars, ancient Huns and Hsiung-nu) today are Kazakhs, very close to us (and almost totally exterminated by Russians) Noghays,  Steppe or Northern Crimean Tatars  (who  are in fact Noghays, too, and also almost totally exterminated),  very close to Kazakhs Uzbek nomads (who are not urban Sarts!) and Kyrghyzs, Turkmens, and maybe, Bashkirs, who are mixture of Turkic nomads and local Ugro-Finns.



Edited by Akskl - 30-Aug-2006 at 00:04

Uygur language is very close to Turkish.  The only problem for an Anatolian Turk while listening to Uygur is the Uygur accent.  If an Anatolian Turk reads Uygur in it's Lantin alphabet form they will notice how close it is.  If all Turks spoke their own Turk languages in the same accent or tone then there would be very little trouble in understanding eachother.  Kazak and Kirgiz are probably the most different Turk languages while comparing all Turk languages from Central Asia, Caucasus and Middle East.  The term Cagatay Turkish is correct if you're refering to the Uygur, Ozbek, Salar and Sari Uygur languages.  If you're referring to these actual people than I think it would be a wrong term.