Why use made-up words to describe people who live in made-up political boundaries?

To the question:

Why should we foreigners use made-up words to describe people in other countries when a majority ethnic group would prefer everyone within their political borders just be called what they call themselves?

My response:

Uzbekistan is not much different than Kazakhstan in terms of it's leader or attempts to Uzbekify non-Uzbeks (or in the case of Kazakhstan, to "kazakhify" non-Kazakhs). The question is, as a foreigner in such an environment, do you passively support this negative as well as un-Soviet, un-American, and un-liberal trend by adopting the usage of the word Kazakh to stand for people who are not ethnically Kazakh yet live within political borders created by a dictatorial Georgian in the Kremlin who denied his own Georgian ethnicity in favor of a more universal Soviet identity, or do you try to find the equivalent of the word "Soviet" in the modern Kazakh language?

My argument, and granted Nazarbaev or Karimov don't really care what my opinion is, let alone the opinion of most of their own citizens, is that as a foreigner who perhaps appreciates minority rights more than ethnic Kazakhs in Kazakhstan or ethnic Uzbeks in Uzbekistan, you have a duty grounded in morality and historical truth to minority groups to push back against this blatant corruption of Soviet experience that most of the citizens in these countries still recall to some extent.

[To my inquisitor who lived in Kazakhstan] As you surely know from having lived there, Central Asia is unique in that it was the dumping ground for minorities on the eastern and western fringes of the Soviet Union. The Meskhetian Turks from western Georgia who were forcibly removed from that country on cattle cars to the steppes of Kazakhstan are probably the most famous example, but the Azeris, Germans, Armenians and Koreans who now straddle the borders of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are yet others. I'm not for a millisecond going to allow the Kazakhs or Uzbeks to repeat the same historical revisionism that Stalin and his followers were notorious for. Granted, there were many bad results of Stalinism, but one of the more positive results is that Central Asia remains perhaps the most polyglot and diverse part of the former Soviet Union today.

Allowing Nazarbaev or Karimov to rewrite the Soviet experience and legacy they have inherited is sacrilege in my mind. Not everything Soviet was bad, and I believe the emphasis on a political identity as opposed to an ethnic or religious identity was one of the few yet very good ideas that evolved from the 1917 revolution. Kazakhstani and Uzbekistani are words that connote political identities, and a
westerner who sees the danger of the nationalism based on ethnicity (do I need to mention Nazi Germany, the Balkans, Afghanistan, or Rwanda?), should always attempt to remind people in Central Asia that ethnicity at one time in their recent history was subordinate to a political identity called "soviet" by always using such words as Kazakhstani and Uzbekistani that connote political identity.

Of course, [to my inquisitor again] you're right about the Kazakhs, but the Kazakhs aren't right about how I use my own language. I choose that, just as Kazakhs in Astana or Almaty choose how they want to speak Russian much to the chagrin of Russians from St. Petersburg who think they speak the most proper and nice-sounding Russian. Anyway, I really appreciate your comments [again, to my inquisitor]. I wish more westerners would spend time in places like Kazakhstan as opposed to watching films like Borat and assuming that people in poor parts of the world have nothing to offer people in wealthier parts of the world besides oil and prostitutes.