genghis khan evolved

[Oleg Smirnov]

The writer <https://bit.ly/2RVeea3>

<https://tinyurl.com/5dd2ek3w> baabar.mn

How Genghis Khan evolved
Russia and China - two major powers of the world have their own
"official" histories, "approved by the state", which they carefully
evaluate, censor and cherry pick, then cram unceremoniously in
textbooks and their citizens' heads. As it always has been. However,
when regimes change, revolutions arise, dynasties rise up and their
"official histories" also get a makeover.

For Russia, "official history" makes sense for the Soviet 1930s-70s period.
In post/pre-Soviet Russia, there is/was no strict "official history", but
it's possible to talk about certain prevailing narratives, concepts and
accents, varying in different epochs. With regard to the China history, the
Chinese might comment on the above and below.

The Ming Dynasty, which emerged after the Yuan Dynasty, denied
everything connected with Mongolia and Genghis Khan and considered it
a shameful period in the history of China. They refused to call the
Mongols "Mongol", and instead began to call them "Tatars", as they used
to call the "wild people" from the north. The rule of the Yuan Dynasty
was considered illegal, and Khubilai was mentioned as the founder of
the Yuan, not Genghis Khan.

After coming to power, the Qing dynasty of Manchu began to praise
Genghis Khan as a god of harmony. Various kings and queens declared
themselves .. reincarnations of Genghis Khan. During the Qing dynasty,
Genghis Khan and other Mongol leaders of the Middle Ages were treated
with special respect, and the Mongols were under their special care.

For the Republicans who overthrew the Manchu Qing dynasty, the Yuan
dynasty epoch became the most disgraceful period in Chinese history.
The Japanese aggression was compared to the rule of the Yuan dynasty
and the Republicans began to praise the struggle of the Chinese against
the Manchu Qing Dynasty by all means. But for the Kuomintang, who came
to power, the Communist Party of China posed a greater threat than Japan.
In the ensuing struggle over Inner Mongolia between the Kuomintang, the
Communists and the Japanese, it was a fight not only for influence over
Inner Mongolia, but also a larger ideological struggle.

The first to declare Genghis Khan a national hero of China was
ultimately Chiang Kai-shek. Genghis Khan, in his interpretation, was a
Chinese emperor .. and was the first Chinese leader to conquer Russia.
.. A historical precedent for Chiang Kai-shek's final victory over the
Chinese Communist Party .. At the same time .. Mao Zedong, told the
Mongols of Inner Mongolia that only fighting the communists would help
them preserve the glorious legacy of Genghis Khan.

The communists eventually gained widespread support from the Mongolian
population. After the final victory of the Communists in 1949, their
attitude towards Genghis Khan changed several times, depending on the
current ideological agenda. In 1950 .. the cult of Genghis Khan
continued, although it lost the main religious zeal .. In the late
1950s, Genghis Khan also briefly became a tyrant in China, but the
Soviet-Chinese feud of the mid-1960s quickly brought him back from that,
to use as a political tool .. In 1962, in China and even in Taiwan, the
public marked the 800th anniversary of the birth of Temujin. ..

During the years of the Cultural Revolution (1967-1976), Genghis Khan
was once again a tyrant in China. .. The Mongols from Inner Mongolia
were pressured to integrate .. The Chinggis mausoleum was plundered ..

Under Deng Xiaoping, Genghis Khan in China was rehabilitated again. This
new policy allowed the restoration of the mausoleum of Genghis Khan ..
they began to hold events under the slogan "Mongols and the Han - One
family." The new Chinese policy concerning nationality, representing
China as the homeland of 56 nationalities, redefined the role of Genghis
Khan and his successors. Now the history of each minority is considered
an integral part of the history of China .. The Mongol conquest no
longer threatens China's vulnerability in history, nor is it even seen
as foreign rule ..

Today, Genghis Khan enjoys the support of the government and plays an
important role as one of the most distinguished national heroes of
China. .. The Chinese's successful manipulation of the image of Genghis
Khan is an impressive testament to the remarkable ability of Chinese
nationalism to turn a national tragedy into a national triumph. ..

I don't feel competent to judge for sure how much it's all true.

With regard to Russia, the writer has made a set of incorrect or inaccurate
claims (in the next post are my comments on), so one can suspect his claims
with regard to China also may be incorrect or inaccurate.

* * *

I think, Tan Qixiang <https://bit.ly/3tU0Yjc> was perfectly right in the
basic pursuit to suggest that the historical maps of China, in misc epochs,
should include not only major dynasties but all the neighboring areas and
'auxiliary' state(like) formations that contributed to the Chinese history.
Any entity can not be properly understood without knowing its interactions.

However, too 'mechanistic' elaboration of all-integrative approach leads to
loss of sane sense. It's OK when you draw on the maps not only the Central
Plain-related dynasties, but also "concurrent border areas". Next step you
best-intentionally (in order to improve inter-ethnic harmony within the
present day China) declare "our motherland was jointly created by all ethnic
groups including those in the border areas". Then, if so, let us combine the
territories of all the ever involved formations and consider this combined
area as "historical territory" of China. This territory looks larger than
PRC, so let us misrationalize it, and expect/demand those lands "back" ;-)

If one traces the above logical chain, a fallacy lurks in the claim that
China "was jointly created by all ethnic groups", when it connotes so as if
all those groups "wrote together the splendid culture and glorious history"
<http://tinyurl.com/yhjtybuy> in a friendly cooperative manner. It's natural
that - for modern China - it would be useful to promote interethnic harmony
and not allow past events to incite present discord and animosity among
ethnicities. But the fallacy is to extrapolate the current mild situation
back into hateful ancient history, even if it's motivated by the present day
best intention.

Any true history, whatewer nation, culture or region, is an uneasy matter
that includes various ugly and unpleasant stuff. People(s) of the past were
more ignorant and less cultural than modern people(s). History is not only a
source of pride, but also a collection of mistakes, and it should be taken
with an idea that we all are expected to become less primitive today.

In particular, the figure of Genghis Khan can illustrate invalidity of too
simplified "jointly created by all ethnic groups" concept, because, indeed,
in such an approach, he must be seen as a notable Chinese leader. Some
Chinese patriots might really think so. But for most of other people, the
claim that Genghis Khan was Chinese would sound nonsensical, because what he
represented culturally differs very much from what China is traditionally
associated with. And, after the pro-Han Red Turbans managed to overthrow the
much hated Mongol power, "Northern Yuan" had naturally fallen away from the
combined state, because the north was not "China", culturally. Many things
happened since then, people(s) have changed, and in the modern China things
differ, but the present situation may not be extrapolated back to the past.

[Oleg Smirnov]

<https://tinyurl.com/5dd2ek3w> baabar.mn

* * *

Here is the Russia part.

.. What influenced the conquest of Genghis Khan and his descendants on
the history of Russia .. As a result of the invasion of Batu Khan's
troops, Kievan Rus disintegrated into at least 5-6 principalities.

No, Russia was disintegrated before, since the mid-12th century. It was a
set of principalities united through one dynastic family and supraprincipal
religious authority. For its neighbours, the area was Russia, as a space
united culturally, ethnically and solidarily, but within itself this space
was without strict central power.

The preexistent disintegration was the main factor that made the nomadic
conquest possible: the old chronicles tell how the invaders took cities one
by one, and the brotherly princes were reluctant to help each other.

Batu Khan supported the Novgorodians and, conquering others, contributed
to their unification.

The invaders just couldn't reach Novgorod easily, because it resides in the
north, further from the steppe. The Novgorod people saw the Tatar deeds and
agreed to start paying tribute. The conquerors didn't unificate anything,
but rather the opposite, they pursued policies intended to keep the Russian
princes in division and competition against each other.

After the accession to the throne of the Romanov dynasty, the attitude
of Russians towards Mongols and Turks began to change dramatically.
The Romanovs sought to Europeanize Russia as their power strengthened;
they began to collect the fragments of the fragmented Golden Horde.
They wanted to get closer to Europe, hindered by the fact that they were
a semi-feudal Asian state that united many Turkic nationalities. ..

The Romanovs reigned since 1613. At the time, the Russian Cossacks already
reached the north-western skirts of the indigenous Mongol area and started
to domesticate it. Piling "Romanovs" on "attitudes" is an absurdity.

Moscow began "to collect the fragments of the Golden Horde" since the late
15th century, about a century before the Romanovs, and the primary reason
for that was just a desire for survival.

Golden Horde (which was overwhelmingly Turkic but not Mongolic) collapsed
in the mid-15th century, but soon the Ottomans came into play (which were
in their most expansionist phase at the time). Inspired by the Ottomans and
under their increased infuence, the post-Horde Tatar khanates started
increasingly raiding and looting Russia in the raid-and-run manner, and the
situation began posing an existential threat to Moscow. Since the 1510s,
the Crimeans and Nogais, and lesser the Kazan Tatars, raided Russia almost
every year, even managed to grab Moscow city. Do imagine what attitudes
were there before the Romanovs. It drove Moscow to vassalize Kazan, which
it tried to accomplish in both peaceful and military ways, which eventually
ended up with a military conquest.

Among other post-Horde khanates, Kazan was the most culturally close to
Moscow, - due to previous history of relationship between Russia and Volga
Bulgaria. In the 16th century, Kazan khanate was a mini-empire with a few
regional vassals, so Moscow got all this stuff many in one. It turned out
a game changer for the regional balance of powers, although the Ottomans
did not give it up, and it was later continued with a long series of the
Russian-Ottoman wars.

As for Europe, Russia's various connections with Europe existed since the
"pre-Mongol" times and throughout the "Mongol Yoke" period. This inter
alia conditioned the fact that the Russians had become notably superior to
the Tatars in weapons and military engineering. Moscow started to "unite
many Turkic nationalities" only after incorporation of the Middle Volga
area. In the 13-15th centuries, there were Tatar groups and units in
Russia orginated from those people who switched from Golden Horder or from
the post-Horde khanates. However, the Moscow state did not include Tatar-
populated areas before the mid-16th century.

It was during this period [17th century] that a remarkable layer of the
Russian intelligentsia was born. The Russian aristocracy and
intelligentsia, concentrated mainly in Moscow and St. Petersburg, were
intimately mixed with people of Mongol-Turkic nationalities. One of
their representatives was the enlightened absolutist Mikhail Karamzin,
who is the author of the history of Russia in 12 volumes.

The writer roughly confuses/inverts epochs vs. concepts/trends. The very
"intelligentsia" concept emerged in the early 19th century only. The fact
that quite many people of the Volga descent came, since the 17th century,
into the Russian educated class illusrates the Moscow agenda to incorporate
the people rather than threat them in tribalist-caste terms.

It was he [Karamzin] who put into circulation the term "Mongol-Tatar
yoke". He wrote that scattered Russia was under the yoke of Genghis Khan
and his descendants for 150 years .. The concept of "Mongol-Tatar yoke",
a period during which Russians were killed, oppressed, struck a chord in
the minds of Russians and greatly influenced their view of their history.

It's not a "concept", but it was very real reality that the Russians were
killed and oppressed. About 3/4 of the Russian cities had been completely
destroyed, and most of their inhabitants were exterminated. Local protests
and riots against Tatar lootings during the early post-conquest period were
suppressed by mass exterminations in the rebellious areas. Economic
structure and, generally, way of life had been significantly primitivized.
Ascending civilizational trends were stopped. Many skillful-useful people,
artisans etc had been captured and taken away. Russia was kept impoverished
because of the necessity to pay large tribute to the conquerors. It didn't
allow to develop normal way. The invasion turned civilization about 100-200
years backward in Russia, so it had to catch up a lot later.

The term "jugum tartaricum" was first used by historian Jan Dlugosz[3].
He tried to prove that due to the fact that the Russians were under the
yoke of the Mongols for a long time and that they were a nation remote
from Europe, and in terms of origin and culture, that had nothing to do
with Europeans. ..

Jan Dlugosz was living in the 15th century, and one should better know the
context. In the 15th century, it's became clear that at some point Moscow
will surely start pulling to itself those Russian-populated regions that
became dependent on Lithuania and / or Poland by that time. Since then and
later, the derogatory image of the Moscow's Russians as de-europeanized
mongoloids became the key element of the Polish-Catholic narratives
intended to avert from Moscow those post-"Kievan-Rus" Russians whom Poland-
Lithuania were keeping under their rule, as well as the regular Poles. The
abuse of hateful ideologies (the Polish Sarmatism was also a notable thing
<https://archive.is/A3lfe#selection-901.30-915.3>) eventually undermined
Poland itself, so since the 17th century it started crumbling internally.

In the (east)European mindset at the time, "mongol" was perceived as a much
stronger marker of inferiority and repulsiveness against "tatar". In Polish
writings about Russia there was an especially importunate meditation on the
Mongols, so that even the present day Poles (as well as the post-Poland
Jews) are still infected with this indoctrination. A little known fact is
that Poland was itself in nominal vassalage to Crimean Tatars, - it bought
them off with a tribute it sent to the khanate until the late 17th century.

With the entry of the Soviet Union into the Second World War .. Stalin
.. compared Hitler to Genghis Khan and Napoleon, who invaded Russia. ..
.. describes the Mongols as wild, cruel and animal-like invaders ..

Genghis Khan indeed was like Hitler (more correctly is to say that Hitler
was like Genghis Khan) <https://archive.is/391pN#selection-893.0-901.70>,
but Genghis Khan is more fortunate because he happened a long time ago.

Since Genghis Khan oppressed Russia and the Russian people, then the
oppressors were the Mongols and the Tatars, i.e. Turkics. Stalin hung
the centuries old "sins" on their descendants. The Nazis, like the
Mongol-Tatars of the Golden Horde, were foreign invaders. Foreigners
who oppressed the Russian people must be guilty of this sin even after
many generations. Stalin forcibly "resettled" the Balkars, Ingush,
Karachais, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Kalmyks and other Turkics and
Mongols to Central Asia. ..

No, those atrocious resettlements were not motivated by a thirst for
revenge for ancient affairs. Stalin resettled either those ethnic groups
who had somehow shown more inclination for collaboration with the enemy
(which didn't necessarily mean majority of them were so) or those about
whom there was a suspiction that they might be inclined to collaboration.
Among those who suffered from the resettlements were not only some of the
Turkic and Mongolic peoples, but some other peoples too.

He also tried to punish the Kazan Tatars similarly .. The Central
Committee .. adopted a decree "On improving the political and ideological
work of the Tatar party organizations .. They were not resettled, but
they were cursed as direct descendants of the "wild" Mongols, and their
identity was tarnished. ..

No, they were not cursed in such a primitive way the writer describes. The
"decree" sought to muffle the particular Kazan Tatar nationalism at the
time of war, when all the Soviet people needed to be kept united. Besides,
it would be foolish to consider the Kazan Tatars direct descendants of the
Mongols, - they don't look Mongolic, and ethnogenetics shows they aren't.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the communist
ideology, the "Mongol-Tatar yoke" began to be treated differently. Many
started to voice their opinions, that "the Golden Horde was an ally of
Russia," "Russia is a continuation of the Golden Horde," etc. and many
public debates ensued. Since 2013, all Russian textbooks have begun to
write not about the "Mongol-Tatar yoke", but about the "period of the
Golden Horde's rule." In any case, now in the "official history" of
modern Russia and school textbooks there is no mention of the shameful
"Mongol-Tatar yoke".

It's false to claim that after the end of the USSR the Russian attitudes
changed, the 13 century Nomadic invasion was considered a disaster before
the USSR, during the USSR, and it is seen so in the post-Soviet Russia as
well. Only nuances/accents differ. In the post-Soviet period, the epoch of
commercialization began when various pseudo/quasi-science became popular,
and various cheap-sensationalist stuff floated up to the surface. It
included "alternative" historical interpretations, usually made either by
romantic amateurs or by unethical people seeking to sell "discovery" or
"exposure". Among serious historians, there is no disputes.

It's true that Russian textbooks today prefer "Golden Horde rule" instead
of "Mongol-Tatar yoke", but this is for the sake of political correctness.
"Mongol-Tatar yoke" is an ethnically charged term, while "Golden Horde
rule" sounds more ethnically neutral, it does not suggest an unnecessary
projection to the present day Tatars and Mongols. But, on the other hand,
those unconscionable activists who seek for glorification of Genghis Khan,
shouldn't expect much favour from the Russia's majority.

All this doesn't mean that the nomadic cultures need to be smeared and the
post-nomadic people in Eurasia, including the Mongolic people, need to be
be somehow subjected to avenge for old Genghis Khan's deeds. There's many
nice, useful and positive elements in the nomadic cultures (and many of
them were adapted into mainstream Russiannes after incorporation of the
steppe, and through the Cossacks). But all things can be abused, and the
Genghis Khan image is not what might be earnestly glorified by sane people.

[Oleg Smirnov]

Before the 13th century, western and central Asia was associated with the
Caliphate, the Seljuk and Khwarezmid states - pretty bright cultures. The
very initial Russia as well as Volga Bulgaria rised in a large part through
interactions with those cultures. Today, many tend to associate Islam with
ignorant bigotry and backwardness, but there was an epoch when advanced
sciences and arts were associated with Islamic cultures (and geographically
with Asia). The Mongol Empire was the destructive force that destroyed the
Islamic Golden Age. The Genghis Khan's troops turned glorious buildings
into ruins, burned great libraries and utilized precious ancient books as a
shoe and construction material. The conquerors in the field then adopted
Islam themselves, but it was notably "less clever" implementation, and most
of the cultural centers of Islamic civilization could never return to their
former chic and glitter, after the Mongols.

China, in the pre-Mongol period, experienced extremely intensive cultural
and economic developments, very rapid population growth. ".. 'Eearly modern'
economy many centuries before Western Europe made its breakthrough. Many of
these economic gains were lost, however, in the succeeding Yuan dynasty"
<http://bit.ly/3bzqELU>. The English Wikipaedia says in neutrally, but it
translates so that it was the Mongol conquest that caused the China's "early
modern economy" to stop. But, instead, Europe had made its "breakthrough".
So good for Europe, but Genghis Khan should be seen as the very first reason
for the China's weakness against the European powers in the 19th century.

In Europe, in the "high-medieval" pre-Mongol period, there were their own
developments and the notable Roman heritage, of course. However, China +
India + the Chaliphate and other west/central Asian formations made Asia at
the time in many respects more advanced against Europe. Then, the Genghis
Khan's expansion changed this picture drastically.

Even if one disputes the very destructive disastrous essense of the Mongol
Empire, it's impossible to deny it as a marker. In the pre-Mongol period,
Asia was either on par or higher against Europe, but after "the Mongols" it
became increasingly backward. And now it's intellectually backward to derive
"Asian pride" from the geopolitical catastrophe the Mongol Empire caused.

The Genghis Khan's profound destruction of Asia was a great gift to Europe
in the geopolitical contest. So from the Western perspective, glorification
of Genghis Khan makes sense. From the Asian perpective, it's a foolishness.

There's an unhealthy natinalistic cult of Genghis Khan in the present day
Mongolia, but nobody cares, because Mongolia is a small nation, so let them
sell their huge clumsy idol to the tourists.

Glorification of Genghis Khan in China would be more serious issue, because
China isn't insignificant. On one hand, it's tempting to utilize it within
"jointly created by all ethnic groups" agenda, for domestic purposes. On
the other hand, the rest of the world knows GK in association with the huge
Mongol empire, not China, and promotion of GK in a non-intra-China context
would inevitably undermine the ideological effort to adapt GK for "Chinese
characteristics" (because it's just impossible to plausibly reconcile GK
with Chinese characteristics). Perhaps this was the main reason for those
recent issues <https://bit.ly/3fpE4uQ>. As well as it's known well that the
Mongol conquest significantly undermined China's civilizational developments
(so from the outside such a glorification would look like somewhat a China's
self-infliction cultism). In turn, the archetypal memory of "hordes" in the
European consciousness contributes to the Western fears about the rise of
Asia, and China in particular. Thus it as well contributes to their attitude
to contain China. You cannot promote an image of China as a historically
peaceful great and wise power and glorify Genghis Khan at the same time. Or
you can do so separately for different audiences. When China was more
informationally "closed", China's ideologists might easier promote different
narratives for domestic and for foreign consumption. As soon as China
increasingly becomes "open", it will become more difficult to sell different
narratives to foreign and domestic audiences.