Xinjiang/East Turkestan in the twentieth century
(political). One chapter comes from Gardner Bovingdon’s The Uyghurs: Strangers in Their Own Land. This chapter provides an overview of historical writing about this region of Central Asia, and how it is used to lay claim to it. One chapter comes from an edited volume, China, Xinjiang, and Central Asia: History, Transition and Crossborder Interaction in the 21st Century. Actually, this is the second section/part from the same chapter written by Peter Perdue and James Millward, two well-known authorities. This section covers the twentieth century. One website is provided by the People’s Republic of China. It addresses arguments about this region’s history, presenting the point of view of the Chinese government:
https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cegv/eng/zywjyjh/t1683694.htm
One website is provided by the Uyghur World Congress. It presents the history of the region from the point of view of the Congress and, presumably, many Uyghur peoples: https://www.uyghurcongress.org/en/east-turkestan-2
So, here is the subject for an essay: First, how do the PRC and the Congress differently explain the history of the region? Pick 3 or 4 factual matters of interpretations. Second, why do they have these differing interpretations? Which do you find to be the most accurate? Finally, based on what you have discussed, do you feel that, in the twentieth century, Xinjiang/East Turkestan continued to experience a history of colonialism? You can structure this how you wish. For example, you can answer these 3 questions with respect to each point of difference you choose in separate paragraphs or parts, or just answer them in succession. For citations, use a simplified Chicago style. Insert footnote and for it, Bovingdon, Uyghurs, 20. Millward and Tursun, “Political History,” 30
