About Genghis as Chinese hero

It's obvious who's the moron here. Starting from the moronic morons who can't handle consequences of their own slander down to lowlife punks like warhead. Blame on yourself that you're a pseudo-manchu. And what ethnic tensions are you talking about? It's all about communist propaganda and desinformation. Ihsan, please delete this thread all ready, it's filled with garbage.

And no, I didn't create it, it was Meng-tzu.

now we don't need any ethnic tension do we?

I'm a national hero to the Chinese!?  I feel so loved.

I won't perplex Chono. It's the only thing that Providence could have contrived to be capable of helping him, either to others inclination or his own necessity.

"What's with this unneeded racial tension?  Calm down, all of you..."

 

Nothing racial on my part, just a loser called chono  who who don't respect what others believe.

What's with this unneeded racial tension?  Calm down, all of you...

Edited by Gubukjanggoon

Don't bud in pseudo-manchu, not your business what mongols read.

Originally posted by cliveersknell Chono I respect you for your knowledge, may I make a simple request, I am not as gifted as you are in history , and I would appreciate if you would not use harsh words on me. If I were to pick on your weaknesses and use harsh words on you, how would you feel? We are all learning, my wife by the way was quite hurt by your statements about her previously. She , like you, is a Mongol, so why do you have to be so rude? Try to learn from CK and not be rude, crude and arrogant. Clive

Oh my, you are so cultivated and sensible are you not. I think I'm too crude to respond adequately to such a sophisticated turn of events. So I'll close my mouth about it and expect you do the same, otherwise, the crudeness will of course go on, I might even call you a piece of bullpie  Apologies to your wife, I hope she'd read some history on her native tongue, that'll heal her of the damage done by communist propaganda.

Judging history makes the whole point of studying it rather useless. It takes away any sort of learning value from it. Otherwise, why are we to learn from inherently evil happenings? What can we learn from something that's been already stamped as evil? The point is already clear and there's no reason to learn from it.

One more question is, what gives us any moral right to judge anyone? We're not even clear about our own morality, which in it's turn is the intellectual product of the very people we're trying to judge. This is rediculous. Studying and understanding the judgements of some contemporary individuals is a wholly different thing, they had the right to do that. We must try to understand why things happened the way they did, and learn from THAT.

Edited by Chono

"You are judging him by modern standards. "

On a site with an almost complete overview of all wars, tyrants, atrocities, etc. in history, this is a part of the FAQ (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-faq.htm#judge):

Q: Is it fair to judge the past by the moral standards of today? A: Sure. Why not? Sometime the curses of posterity are the only punishments that a monster from history will ever get. Stalin died peacefully in his sleep, beloved and mourned by a nation. Are we going to let him get away with that? Also, if the purpose of studying history is to avoid past mistakes, then we have to decide what those mistakes were. That means passing judgement. Did Augustus bring tyranny or stability to the Roman world? Do states' rights allow oppressive local governments to flourish, or prevent the rise of federal tyranny? And if we want to promote heroic role models, we first have to find someone we admire. That too requires that we judge the past. I for one am not going to promote posthumous veneration for someone I'm glad we're rid of. One other thing I've noticed is that "the moral standards of today" are not always a recent invention. To say that slaveholders of the 1800's can't be held morally accountable ignores the fact that huge segments of the population were already opposed to slavery at that time. If we argue that the massacre of civilians was an accepted aspect of medieval warfare ("Everybody did it"), then we slander the various saints and holy men that spoke against it, and the occasional general who showed mercy to his captives. After all, aren't you including them in the "everybody" who did it?

I pretty much agree with this. In order to learn from history, you have to look at the mistakes made in the past. So judging mass-murderers from the past by the moral standards of today is fine. It should learn us there should never be anyone like CK again.

One thing for sure, CK gave many people many chances.
This can be testified by many historical books, and documents. It is these people who abuse them and try to be vindictive , which made Ck does thing he normally doesnt want to do.
The sad thing, is many people in this world, including some people in this forum, claim they respect and pay homage to CK, but actually act more like the small little people who abuse the chances and graces CK gave them.

Clive