Time shifts all things, leaving no stone unturned.
In an earlier post, I documented how the Uighurs, though now persecuted by central authorities in Beijing, were once the allies of Beijing, assisting them in the genocide of millions of Dzungarian Mongols, nearly wiping out the entirety of the people.
But after the genocide, there still remained a scattering of Dzungarian Mongols, those who either surrendered immediately or hid until the slaughter had ceased. The descendants of these survivors still live in the northern portion of Xinjiang today.
On our way to Kashgar, I met one of these Mongolians. He said he was from the area near Sayram Lake, the area on the border with Kazakhstan. He told me that his family lived in a small village not far from the lake, eking out an existence herding. His description made the area sound beautifully bucolic. Just listening to him, I could sense that he was a lover of the land, his land.
I asked him if he was traveling on business, he refused to give me a clear response, only telling me that his journey was “something like a business trip.” I assumed that he was traveling as government work, meaning that he was probably a communist cadre.
He asked me what I did, so I told him I was studying Chinese Literature, and this set us off on a discussion of Chinese literature. I asked him if he had ever read the Chinese classic, Journey to the West. He responded, “Of course.”
I pressed him. “I did not know if you found that interesting, since it is Han Chinese literature. I did not know if you were more interested in Mongolian literature?”
“I’ll read anything that is good. I have to read a lot of Chinese. There is very little Mongolian literature.” He told me.
“No wonder you speak Chinese very well.” I complimented him.
“We have no choice. There are just so few Mongolians. We have to speak Chinese. Since the Han are the main ethnic group in our country, the language of the Han Chinese functions as our country’s main language.”
As our conversation died down a little, he turned and looked me over, deciding whether or not to say what he was thinking. “Can I ask you something and you won’t get mad at me?”
“Sure,” I told him, interested in hearing what he had to say.
“You know you are losing your hair? You are not very old. You and I are about the same age.” He was very sincere. He reached out and brushed my hair.
“Yes, I’m aware of that.” I chuckled.
“You know, there are shampoos that we sell for helping that,” he told me.
I laughed, tickled that he was very concerned that I would get offended by his observation of facts. “I know, I know,” I assured him, “but I just stopped caring.”
Later on, as I perused our conversation in those mental archives, something struck me about this whole encounter. Unlike the Uighur I had spoken with in the last post, who complained of mistreatment at the hands of Chinese authorities, this Mongolian, whose people had almost been completely extirpated by forces in Beijing, seemed accepting of Chinese authority. He almost acknowledged his race’s inferiority to the Chinese and was likely a member of the government which considered itself the inheritor of this genocide. He read Chinese literature and spoke Chinese since there were so few people who spoke or wrote in Mongolian.
As I said at the beginning of this post, time leaves no stone unturned. Those who once fought against Beijing now work with Beijing, while those who once helped slaughter for Beijing are now slaughtered by Beijing.
You are making a point that PRC is an inheritor of the Manchu Qing empire. I think Mark Elliot makes a good case for it (btw, Mark Elliot also thinks the Dzungarian Genocide is more of imperial propaganda than facts on the ground ).
But this line of thinking is not without its problems. Are children of later immigrants to United States really responsible or in anyway tied to Genocide of Native Americans and Slavery?
Your ethnic relationship history is not correct.
Han was NOT a major component of the Qing imperial army that conquered Dzungaria. Qing conquest of Dzungar Khanate is mostly a Manchu-Mongol enterprise. Peter Purdue’s excellent book “China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia” captures this history. Han didn’t dominate Xinjiang governance until after Zuo Zongtong’s Reconquista of 1878.
There are several groups of Mongols in Xinjiang. Chahar Mongols are part of the Qing imperial army that defeated Dzungar Khanate. Surrendered Dzungar were no longer allow to use “Dzungar” moniker,only to be call Oriat, the umbrella name of Western Mongols.
A great portion of Xinjiang Mongol are Torghut of Oriat who had earlier migrated to Volga river because of Dzungar pressure. After the defeat of Dzungar, and depopulation of Dzungaria, Torghut decided to to escape Tsarist Russian yoke and return to Dzungaria. Their epic journey across Eurasia steppe to Xinjiang, has been used as propaganda material first by Qianlong emperor, and now by PRC.
so your narrative is fraught with many problems.
I apologize for my wordings but there doesn’t seem to be a way to edit my comments.
what I am trying to say is that I think it’s important not to view the past thru the lens of ethno-nationalism that was developed much later in the crucible of the French Revolution in Europe.
Qing is a cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic empire.
In the decisive battle of Mt. Gedang, where Dzungar leader Dawaci was defeated, the hero of Qing army is none other than Ayuki, a Dzungar, who lead 20 horsemen to raid Dawaci’s camp. For this, he has been immortalized by the painting of Giuseppe Castiglione. His portrait is still at Taipei Palace Museum as a great piece of imperial propaganda:
http://www.npm.gov.tw/exh94/firstfamily/big02.html
Eugenia Lean of Columbia had given a 6 minute quick primer on Qing imperialism vs European imperialism that properly sets the context IMHO for Qing empire in a vimeo video
http://vimeo.com/44335220
Though you bring up some good points, you are reading what you think I am saying into what I actually wrote.
I am not reading the past through the lens of later nationalism. I have not made the PRC into a Han empire. The PRC says it is the inheritor of the Qing Dynasty, and I am taking them at their word. So, as the legacy of the genocidal Qing, the PRC has a certain degree of responsibility to answer for the Dzungarian genocide. What that responsibility is is hard to say, but I feel comfortable with everything I wrote. It is problematic for this Mongolian man to be serving the government that claims to be the heirs to the empire that almost extirpated his ethnic group.
“It is problematic for this Mongolian man to be serving the government that claims to be the heirs to the empire that almost extirpated his ethnic group.”
The underlying assumption here seem to be that he should feel bounded to a pan-Mongol nationalism. But the Mongol is not a monolithic group. Certainly not during the time of Dzungar’s defeat. During the early Dzungarian campaign, Khalkha Mongols (the main ethnic group of today’s country of Mongolia, or Outer Mongolia) contributed the bulk of Qing cavalry. Later Qing also brought Chahar Mongols from Inner Mongolia to garrison Xinjiang. So Dzungar Campaign is as much a fratricidal war among different groups of Mongols.
Mongol popluation of Xinjiang today in large part consist of Torghut who returned from Volga river after Dzungar’s defeat. They were originally chased out by Dzungar from their ancestral pastures.
so it’s quite probable that the Mongolian man that you have spoken to, has ancestors who have made their own accommodation with Qing, even might have participated in the destruction of Dzungars.
On the other hand, even if his people are indeed Dzungar survivors, would it be problematic for a Sioux or a Navajo TODAY to speak English , consume American pop culture, and join the US Army? They do, you know.
Marginalized minorities often do NOT have the luxury of choice, but to negotiate accommodation in their own way to survive among the dominant Power culture.