Should Genghis Khan be posthumously charged with hate crimes against Islam?

[TemujinKhan]

It has more to do with the fact that human differences are clinal, therefore there is not a clear line that separated asians and caucasians.

asians have been separated from caucasians for 100,000 years, whereas both have been seperated from africans for 200,000 years. Obviously there will be more genetic similarity between asians and caucasions due to this but that is still 100,000 years of separation in different climates, different diets, mating habits and cultures.

I think the problem is the term "race" itself, from what I know humans are not a race per se, they are a species, and what we define as different human races are not races but different breeds of human species. Similar to different breeds of cats and dogs, in fact I have heard that the different human breeds are more genetically different from one another than different breeds of dogs.

I'm no expert on race theory but from the research I have done, this is what I know: there are 3 or 4 different breeds of humans on this planet: mongoloid, negroid, caucasoid and australoid, the 4th one is still debatable as they are difficult to classify under any of the other 3 so they are considered their own breed.

The different breeds of humans have been shown to have many differences in averages in the following areas: bone structure, cranium size, maturation rates, ovulation rates, skin color, bone density, brain weight and size, fat deposits in the body and face, behavioural patterns, propensity to certain diseases and conditions, immune systems.

Now if all that is true and I'm not saying it is but they have done experiments on these things, Darwin was fascinated by this topic and ran multiple tests and measurements, followed by other scientists. Since then the topic of race has become far too controversial so for political reasons the findings of the research are not released to the public and it has now become a taboo subject.

 

[Rod1]

asians have been separated from caucasians for 100,000 years, whereas both have been seperated from africans for 200,000 years. Obviously there will be more genetic similarity between asians and caucasions due to this but that is still 100,000 years of separation in different climates, different diets, mating habits and cultures.

Nope.

I think the problem is the term "race" itself, from what I know humans are not a race per se, they are a species, and what we define as different human races are not races but different breeds of human species. Similar to different breeds of cats and dogs, in fact I have heard that the different human breeds are more genetically different from one another than different breeds of dogs

Again, not really backed up by evidence.

I'm no expert on race theory but from the research I have done, this is what I know: there are 3 or 4 different breeds of humans on this planet: mongoloid, negroid, caucasoid and australoid, the 4th one is still debatable as they are difficult to classify under any of the other 3 so they are considered their own breed.

Not backed by modern genetic studies.

The different breeds of humans have been shown to have many differences in averages in the following areas: bone structure, cranium size, maturation rates, ovulation rates, skin color, bone density, brain weight and size, fat deposits in the body and face, behavioural patterns, propensity to certain diseases and conditions, immune systems.

Yes, and said differences are clinal, they change gradually not abruptly as it would be required for true races to actually exist, people start looking more white as you go to europe and more asian as you move eastward through the steppes.

Now if all that is true and I'm not saying it is but they have done experiments on these things, Darwin was fascinated by this topic and ran multiple tests and measurements, followed by other scientists. Since then the topic of race has become far too controversial so for political reasons the findings of the research are not released to the public and it has now become a taboo subject.

It has not really become taboo, thats a word people use when research doesnt goes the way they like, like global warming denial.

Studies about the genetic differences among humans are still released every year.

 

[SatsuiNoHado]

No, the Mongols were famous for their religious tolerance (or indifference). The Khwarazmian empire was not destroyed because they were Muslim. The governor of the town of Otrar killed several Mongolian diplomats, and when Genghis Khan sent a message to the Shah demanding that he take responsibility for this transgression and hand the governor over, the Shah refused. Once you piss the Mongols off, you can expect nothing less than total annihilation.

 

[TemujinKhan]

Nope.

Like I said I'm no expert and if the information incorrect then feel free to correct me instead of resorting to one word rebuttals. whats off here the timeline or the evolutionary stuff.

Again, not really backed up by evidence.

Cool.

Not backed by modern genetic studies.

So what do the modern "studies" conclude? that there are no different human group classifications? All human groups are essentially the same? I'm seriously asking the question as I am curious.

Yes, and said differences are clinal, they change gradually not abruptly as it would be required for true races to actually exist, people start looking more white as you go to europe and more asian as you move eastward through the steppes.

So you do admit that those stated differences do exist, and in regards to the gradual shift in appearance wouldn't that be due to mixing due to closer proximity and climate? The way I look at it, when the different human breeds first evolved the lands in between them were mostly empty, as human populations grew and came in contact with one another they mixed and settled in the lands in between the original large groups, this explains the gradual shift.

It has not really become taboo, thats a word people use when research doesnt goes the way they like, like global warming denial.

No it really has, the topic of racial differences is certainly as taboo as it gets. Can you imagine a scientist that wanted to measure cranium sizes of different racial groups and weigh their brains, etc. He would be chastised, how many scientists can you name at the moment that specifically focus on race theory. There is a political motive here to not conduct this type of research.

 

[trojansc82]

Sounds like a pretty strong dude.

I wonder how quickly he could have wiped out Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, the Taliban, ISIS, and Iran? 2 weeks?

Dude did not mess around. We could use him in our fight against ISIS. Democrats would rather use the Teddy Ruxpin approach.

 

[Rod1]

If you don't see a difference in perception between Alexander and Temujin then you're not paying enough attention. Alexander is romanticized in the west, there are countless films, literature and television programs showing a sympathetic multi-layered portrayal of a man driven by desire, love and conquest, they show many sides to him as a complex character. Temujin and the mongols are portrayed as vicious murderous savages who were only succesful due to their sheer savagery, there are many villainous characters such as Fu Manchu and Wrath of Khan that are partially based on Temujin and the Mongols.

In the west Temujin is often compared with Hitler, even though they couldn't be any more different since Temujin was not xenophobic or racist, he was interested in other cultures and religions and allowed religious freedom for those under his rule.

There are some who admire him even in the west since they consider him a badass, obviously in Mongolia he will be revered. But if you ask an average person on the street their thoughts on Alexander and Temujin, you will get 2 totally different responses, one will conjure up glorious romanticized images of Ancient Greece, a great man and conquerer. The other will conjure up images of nothing but death, savagery and evil. That's how indoctrination works, you have no idea the power of media to shape thoughts and perceptions.

That has to do more with Alexander being the culmination of classical greece, which influenced western, north african and middle-eastern culture.

Mongol empire rose and fell like a big fire, so all that people remembered was the ashes left, Alexander left a legacy that effected the region for centuries, to a point that even persians like Alexander.

 

[TemujinKhan]

That has to do more with Alexander being the culmination of classical greece, which influenced western, north african and middle-eastern culture.

Mongol empire rose and fell like a big fire, so all that people remembered was the ashes left, Alexander left a legacy that effected the region for centuries, to a point that even persians like Alexander.

Part of it yes, but as they say history is rewritten by the winners. Obviously ancient greece is looked upon more favorably now then central asian nomads. There are some groups who still look upon Temujin favorably as well, the Koreans, some Russians and most of all peoples of Central Asia and Turks. And central asian civilizations such as the huns, mongols and turks were around for thousand years and highly influential on the world stage the entire time, to think that they were a flash in the pan is incorrect.

It wasn't all roses in Greece either, with all the rampant homosexual phila at the time, they did some barbaric things as well, like forcing little boys to sleep with older men as a rites of passage. What I am saying is the divide in perception between the two are such polar opposites it does make you wonder a bit at the hypocrisy of glorifying one man to such extreme and villainizing the other extreme.

Temujin and Mongols weren't all bad either, their military system of meritocracy was studied and implemented by other nations, their religious and racial tolerance was unprecedented at the time and influenced other nations. They founded the Yuan dynasty in China, increased trade routes between nations that previously were not in contact with another. The mongols and central asian steppe peoples are not the evil force they are currently perceived as being today, in many ways they were more civilized than those that considered them barbarians.

 

[Andy Capp]

I can't see how anybody could really try to pull moral rank back then. The Muslim armies, the Mongol hordes, and the Crusaders were all pretty much epic A++++++ grade assholes.

In fact, until recently, all of mankind was pretty much horrific.

How recently? Yesterday? It's pretty horrific now in some places. I agree he's far from unique for the time period in that respect.

 

[KnightTemplar]

"The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemies, see them driven before you, ride their horses, see the cheeks of those who love them wet with tears, and gather their wives and daughters to your chest."

Like a BOSS!:icon_twis

 

[Perfidious]

asians have been separated from caucasians for 100,000 years, whereas both have been seperated from africans for 200,000 years. Obviously there will be more genetic similarity between asians and caucasions due to this but that is still 100,000 years of separation in different climates, different diets, mating habits and cultures.

I think the problem is the term "race" itself, from what I know humans are not a race per se, they are a species, and what we define as different human races are not races but different breeds of human species. Similar to different breeds of cats and dogs, in fact I have heard that the different human breeds are more genetically different from one another than different breeds of dogs.

I'm no expert on race theory but from the research I have done, this is what I know: there are 3 or 4 different breeds of humans on this planet: mongoloid, negroid, caucasoid and australoid, the 4th one is still debatable as they are difficult to classify under any of the other 3 so they are considered their own breed.

The different breeds of humans have been shown to have many differences in averages in the following areas: bone structure, cranium size, maturation rates, ovulation rates, skin color, bone density, brain weight and size, fat deposits in the body and face, behavioural patterns, propensity to certain diseases and conditions, immune systems.

Now if all that is true and I'm not saying it is but they have done experiments on these things, Darwin was fascinated by this topic and ran multiple tests and measurements, followed by other scientists. Since then the topic of race has become far too controversial so for political reasons the findings of the research are not released to the public and it has now become a taboo subject.

You may want to fact check your own posts, the splitting of the races was not that long ago, there are not "breeds" of humans and although you were very vague, you seem to be insinuating that Darwin was a strong believer in some races being superior when Darwin never really said anything racist and seemed to believe in culture > race. Darwin inspired a lot of racism but he himself was incredibly progressive considering he was a white Englishman in the 1800s.

 

[Rod1]

Like I said I'm no expert and if the information incorrect then feel free to correct me instead of resorting to one word rebuttals. whats off here the timeline or the evolutionary stuff.

Were you raised in China? Because i read somewhere that Chinese government tried to force the multiregional origin of man up until the 80s, man properly left Africa around 60,000 years ago.

Cool.

Genetic differences are not evidence of a multirregional origin of man or races themselves. As i said before human differences are clinal.

So what do the modern "studies" conclude? that there are no different human group classifications? All human groups are essentially the same? I'm seriously asking the question as I am curious.

That humans differences are clinal, or gradual, therefore there was never a true isolation, only clinal differences caused by the enviroment and genetic drift.

The difference between races and human differences would be like the difference between.

Spoiler

And

Spoiler

Sure, you can pick an individual pixel right in the center of the different palettes and claim that the same colors as the first one exist in the second, but that would be incorrect because the vast majority of points are just inbetweens.

So you do admit that those stated differences do exist, and in regards to the gradual shift in appearance wouldn't that be due to mixing due to closer proximity and climate? The way I look at it, when the different human breeds first evolved the lands in between them were mostly empty, as human populations grew and came in contact with one another they mixed and settled in the lands in between the original large groups, this explains the gradual shift.

Thats the multirregional origin theory and its been debunked, the gradual differences exist because of gradual climate adaptations, genetic drift and selective mating, and even so, humans have never stopped mixing with each other, more now than ever.

No it really has, the topic of racial differences is certainly as taboo as it gets. Can you imagine a scientist that wanted to measure cranium sizes of different racial groups and weigh their brains, etc. He would be chastised, how many scientists can you name at the moment that specifically focus on race theory. There is a political motive here to not conduct this type of research.

I said genetic differences, if you are parting from a point where you already determined that the world is divided in three races and then look to validate said theory, then yes, you will be chastized, but not for political reasons but for academical reasons. For the same reason climate change deniers are being chastized.

Of course people will always claim politics when people dont agree with you, the fact is that genetic studies in different ethnic groups come up every single day, they arent constrained by an archaic definition of race created in an age before people even accepted mendelian inheritance, of course you are going to be chastized.

 

[Rod1]

Part of it yes, but as they say history is rewritten by the winners. Obviously ancient greece is looked upon more favorably now then central asian nomads. There are some groups who still look upon Temujin favorably as well, the Koreans, some Russians and most of all peoples of Central Asia and Turks. And central asian civilizations such as the huns, mongols and turks were around for thousand years and highly influential on the world stage the entire time, to think that they were a flash in the pan is incorrect.

They were not that influential as opposed to others i mentioned, in part for the reason you mention that they were too multicultural to imprint a definite culture.

It wasn't all roses in Greece either, with all the rampant homosexual phila at the time, they did some barbaric things as well, like forcing little boys to sleep with older men as a rites of passage. What I am saying is the divide in perception between the two are such polar opposites it does make you wonder a bit at the hypocrisy of glorifying one man to such extreme and villainizing the other extreme.

Again, did you grew up in China? rampant philia is very much an asian thing too.

Of course communist China wants to erase that past as if it never happened

Men's sexual interest in youths was reflected in prostitution, with young male sex workers fetching higher prices than their female counterparts as recently as the beginning of the 20th century. In Tianjin there were thirty-five male brothels, housing 800 boys, and men from the area were assumed to be expert in anal relations. Although the superintendent of trade at Guangzhou issued an annual warning to the population against permitting westerners access to boy prostitutes ("do not indulge the Western barbarian with all our best favors"), Europeans were increasingly welcomed in the boy brothels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty#China

Temujin and Mongols weren't all bad either, their military system of meritocracy was studied and implemented by other nations, their religious and racial tolerance was unprecedented at the time and influenced other nations. They founded the Yuan dynasty in China, increased trade routes between nations that previously were not in contact with another. The mongols and central asian steppe peoples are not the evil force they are currently perceived as being today, in many ways they were more civilized than those that considered them barbarians.

Yes, but people dont remember them for that, thanks in part for their religious and cultural tolerance.

 

[Titus002]

Khan is giving a very biased view, borderline silly description of nomadic steppe barbarians. All I have to do is read the description of the Huns by Ammianus Marcellinus to understand steppe barbarians. Nothing worse for civilized agricultural society then wandering nomads on horse.
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/AmmHuns.html

 

[TemujinKhan]

You may want to fact check your own posts, the splitting of the races was not that long ago, there are not "breeds" of humans and although you were very vague, you seem to be insinuating that Darwin was a strong believer in some races being superior when Darwin never really said anything racist and seemed to believe in culture > race. Darwin inspired a lot of racism but he himself was incredibly progressive considering he was a white Englishman in the 1800s.

Again, I never claimed to be an expert on the subject, I'm just as curious about the topic and seek the truth.

Also this article from the daily mail states that man left africa 130,000 years ago which is off from my original estimate:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2610571/How-man-left-Africa-130-000-years-ago-Humans-arrived-Europe-multiple-waves-earlier-previously-thought-researchers-claim.html

I never implied any type of superiority by Darwin, just that he was fascinated by the topic and conducted studies, and I agree with him that culture is the determining factor in behavioural patterns, up to 60% culture, 40% genetics. The concept of superiority itself is subjective. The only truly superior peoples will be those that are still on this planet in a 1000 years and that may have nothing to do with race.

 

[goldennirvana]

This is mostly due to western indoctrination, not wanting to give credit to a non-white person for being the greatest conquerer in history.

LOL! It would be for the complete OPPOSITE reason - to bash white people over the head with. More 'evil whitey, feel bad, feel very very bad'.

Alexander is romanticized in the west, there are countless films, literature and television programs showing a sympathetic multi-layered portrayal of a man driven by desire, love and conquest, they show many sides to him as a complex character.

And Genghis Khan is romanticized in Mongolia. Enough of this nonsense.

In the west Temujin is often compared with Hitler, even though they couldn't be any more different since Temujin was not xenophobic or racist, he was interested in other cultures and religions and allowed religious freedom for those under his rule.

Yes Hitler killed for racist reasons and Khan killed for non-racist reasons. They're so different. lulz

But if you ask an average person on the street their thoughts on Alexander and Temujin, you will get 2 totally different responses, one will conjure up glorious romanticized images of Ancient Greece, a great man and conquerer. The other will conjure up images of nothing but death, savagery and evil. That's how indoctrination works, you have no idea the power of media to shape thoughts and perceptions.

Prove it.

their religious and racial tolerance was unprecedented at the time and influenced other nations.

Says the guy who has made anti non-Asian comments in the past. And I think when the Mongols were decimating Muslims, Buddhists Christians & others, there wasn't much tolerance to be found. But hey they allowed people of various religious backgrounds in their ranks so what the hell!

 

[TemujinKhan]

Were you raised in China? Because i read somewhere that Chinese government tried to force the multiregional origin of man up until the 80s, man properly left Africa around 60,000 years ago.

no I wasn't and this article states they left africa 130,000 years ago:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2610571/How-man-left-Africa-130-000-years-ago-Humans-arrived-Europe-multiple-waves-earlier-previously-thought-researchers-claim.html

Genetic differences are not evidence of a multirregional origin of man or races themselves. As i said before human differences are clinal.



That humans differences are clinal, or gradual, therefore there was never a true isolation, only clinal differences caused by the enviroment and genetic drift.

The difference between races and human differences would be like the difference between.

Spoiler

And

Spoiler

Sure, you can pick an individual pixel right in the center of the different palettes and claim that the same colors as the first one exist in the second, but that would be incorrect because the vast majority of points are just inbetweens.

OK, I'm willing to give that theory a chance, it sounds reasonable but how about the australian aborigines, I know they live on an island but so does Japan, the closest peoples to the australian aborigines are southeast asian people who look nothing like them. Also where is the gradual shift between subsaharan africans and Semitic people, I would say that is a pretty drastic difference between a morrocan or egyptian in comparison to a ethiopian.

Thats the multirregional origin theory and its been debunked, the gradual differences exist because of gradual climate adaptations, genetic drift and selective mating, and even so, humans have never stopped mixing with each other, more now than ever.

The clinal theory may be correct but is still doesn't disprove that major genetic differences between different groups on opposite ends of the planet

I said genetic differences, if you are parting from a point where you already determined that the world is divided in three races and then look to validate said theory, then yes, you will be chastized, but not for political reasons but for academical reasons. For the same reason climate change deniers are being chastized.

Of course people will always claim politics when people dont agree with you, the fact is that genetic studies in different ethnic groups come up every single day, they arent constrained by an archaic definition of race created in an age before people even accepted mendelian inheritance, of course you are going to be chastized.

 

[TemujinKhan]

Again, did you grew up in China? rampant philia is very much an asian thing too.

Of course communist China wants to erase that past as if it never happened

Men's sexual interest in youths was reflected in prostitution, with young male sex workers fetching higher prices than their female counterparts as recently as the beginning of the 20th century. In Tianjin there were thirty-five male brothels, housing 800 boys, and men from the area were assumed to be expert in anal relations. Although the superintendent of trade at Guangzhou issued an annual warning to the population against permitting westerners access to boy prostitutes ("do not indulge the Western barbarian with all our best favors"), Europeans were increasingly welcomed in the boy brothels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty#China

Difference is that in Greece it was institutionalized as a rites of passage for young boys. Prostitution serves a niche market, but making it mandatory is on another level.

 

[TemujinKhan]

Khan is giving a very biased view, borderline silly description of nomadic steppe barbarians. All I have to do is read the description of the Huns by Ammianus Marcellinus to understand steppe barbarians. Nothing worse for civilized agricultural society then wandering nomads on horse.
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/AmmHuns.html

Says the guy with a Roman soldier in his av, remember the colloseum where they used to make people fight lions, and other unspeakable acts for the sadistic pleasure of the populations? As if they were much better. I never said Steppe people were saints, especially the Huns, they were pretty cray.

The difference is that people know they were but they consider ancient romans and greeks to be heroes.

 

[goldennirvana]

Difference is that in Greece it was institutionalized as a rites of passage for young boys. Prostitution serves a niche market, but making it mandatory is on another level.

 

[goldennirvana]

The difference is that people know they were but they consider ancient romans and greeks to be heroes.

They created civilizations which are the foundation for modern Western civilization, so yeah, pretty fucking awesome. Mongols & Huns? Purely barbarian in actions with no interest in culture, science & mathematics.