is Genghis Khan's empire another example of a successful implementation of multiculturalism?
>>857506
>multiculturalism = mass genocide
Well colour me surprised
You're not welcome here, John
>>857506
No, because they treated all cultures as equally beneath their own
>>857516
yeah i get the joke you did there since the khan could wipe out whole cities if they wherent licking his ass
but how does multiculturalism = genocide?
>>857571
It is meme about how if you live with other culture your culture will be like 98% of population which totally converts into 2% genocide rate even is nobody died.
>>857571
je hust browses /pol/ way too often
>>857576
>appeal to stone fallacy
wew lad
>>857506
>Mongol "empire"
>successful
well it's dead now so I'd hardly call it successful
>great
>mongol
>empire
t. voltaire
Not really, why would it be?
>>857506
have mongaboos really gone this far?
>>857506
At the cost of the loss of their own culture and eventually the disintegration of the empire.
It's assimilation, not multiculturalism.
>>857506
>multiculturalism
>not interracial breeding
>>857506
Kill 6-10 percent of the worlds population. "Succesful".
They achieved nothing. No useful technologies, no significant philosophical, scientific achievements. All they did was attack well established, hard working society and destroyed it
>>858546
Actually some estimates go so far as 11 percent.
>ITT: butthurt chinks, Muslims and Brits who almost lose out in Empire size to horse fuckers.
>>858622
I can't be bothered about finding a research paper but here it is from history.com - look at number 6. It's a pretty well known fact.
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-genghis-khan
>>858546
Why are Hitler or Stalin considered evil but Genghis Khan is considered just a badass? Will people stop hating Hitler 500 years from now?
>>858638
people have lower expectations of a Steppe person from 1200.
>>858643
As opposed to a broke Austrian painter?
>>858638
He suceed, to begin with. So Stalin is above Hitler
>>858648
So your admitting Germans are the nigger/barbarian of Europe?
>>858638
why are you only bringing up these three people when there have been empires both before and after genghis
we hate hitler and stalin because they were pointlessly cruel and incompetent and recent enough that they really didn't need to be
>>858663
That's irrelevant to the debate.
>>858664
>why are you only bringing up these three people when there have been empires both before and after genghis
No ruler until Stalin and Hitler was as murderous and genocidal as Genghis Khan though.
>>858680
What about Tywin Lannister?
>>857574
If you import a number of people of different culture and race into your lands, and then interbreed with them, your culture and people's will be slowly be eroded away. In a sense it's reverse assimilation. An Irish immigrant coming to America forgets the traditional dishes of Ireland and comes to love Burgers. In contrast, a Mexican immigrant coming to America may come to hate the burger and cause Americans to grow fond of the Taco. In a sense the traditional culture has been weakened and reduced. What makes it genocide is the idea that the weakening of cultural bonds is seen as a long term goal of certain elites out of malice towards the current dominant race and cultural system.
>>858688
No clue who that is.
>>858677
It is though, your comparing a poor painter from an enlightened country to a 1200 man from a country that's only natural resource is horse archers.
>>858696
>Mongolia
>country
Nice meme.
>>858680
he didn't do it pointlessly, so there
>>858711
>butchering an entire city after it surrenders
>not pointless
Nigger was a sadist.
>>858716
those would be enemies.
it's cruel and disagreeable, sure, but not the same as doing it for an autistic ideology on people chosen through very chancy criteria.
>>858732
>civilians
>enemies
Yeah in the same sense Jews were Hitler's enemies.
>freedom of religion
>freedom of culture as shown when the ilkhanate allowed the persians to return to their own language rather than the previous arabic one
>banned halal slaughter
dey were bretty good until dey all turned muslim tbqh famalam :-DDD
>>858716
It wasn't pointless. It was to scare the next city into surrendering so a siege wouldn't be necessary.
>>858739
the difference lies mostly in where you acquire the civilians from
>>858638
Because people want to recreate the nations hilter and Stalin made while you don't hear about people trying to recreate a steppe empire
>>858689
Oh no
human cultural change
the horror
>>858638
Because of time. Try talking about hitler or stalin in about 700 years and things will have changed. Just look at Napoleon.
There are three countries Mongol couldn't conquer. Holy roman empire, India and Egypt. They were strong feudal countries then.
>>858846
>India
Technically they did, if you believe the Mughal emperors claims of being the "direct descendants" of Genghis Khan.
But the culture was more of a persianate society, as shown in their architecture when they built the Taj Mahal and alot of other fancy stuff.
>Egypt
You can thank the Mamluke sultanate for that, which basically were muslim turkmen loyal to the remaining surviving Abbasid bloodline that knew all the steppe tactics so they knew how to warfare against the invading mongol tumens unlike the rest of the locals.
>>858836
Napoleon wasn't a bad guy though, except to maybe the eternal anglo.
>>858882
>Technically they did, if you believe the Mughal emperors claims of being the "direct descendants" of Genghis Khan.
The Mughals did not claim, nor want o be associated with Genghiz Khan, nor the Mongols, who were barbarians to their eyes.
They claim descent from Timur and stop there.
>>858920
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire
>The Mughal emperors were Central Asian Turco-Mongols belonging to the Timurid dynasty, who claimed direct descent from both Genghis Khan (founder of the Mongol Empire, through his son Chagatai Khan) and Timur (Turco-Mongol conqueror who founded the Timurid Empire).
>>858882
Timur was a pretender to the Mongols, he had no real decent.
HRE at the time was garbage
>>857506
>multiculturalism
>ever succeeding
Turcomongols aren't that bad, desu.
>>858929
>"If the Mongol race were a race of angels, they would still be an abominable nation;
>And were the name of Mongol written in gold, it would be odious."
Baburname, Babur's autobiography.
This was the 1500's. Mongol is a byword for "Barbarism" for a dynasty that sees itself as the flowers of Islamic Persianate Aristocracy.
The Mughals themselves were basically the Persians/Turkics/Turko-Mongols who chose to follow Babur around. They weren't a race.
>>858689
Anon, you know burgers weren't invented in America, right? They were brought to American by German immigrants. How is that any different from Mexican immigrants bringing Tacos to America?
>>859090
Again, I said "technically" as in if you have that perception. Since Baburs mother was a descendant of Genghis Khan and the language he used to write the Baburnama in was chagatai used by the mongolian Chagatai khanate which implied his cultural ties with them.
What ethnicity, race and creed he identified as is up to him since he really never added anything to the Mongol empire anyways since it was long gone and only fragments remained.
>>859213
>>859090
M8's, back then people usually divided the dynasty from the "nation." Especially when the dynasty came from perceived barbarians. Since dynasties usually cross borders and rule over more than one race.
In China for example, Genghiz Khan was considered a barbarian nig while Kubilai Khan is beloved and is considered a Chinese Emperor as well as Mongol Khan.
Ottomans preferred being called Ottoman while Turk is an insult for them as it evokes images of yurt-dwelling unwashed horseniggers.
Shit is similar in Europe. The Plantagenets are not "French" nor "English" they're Plantagenets. European dynasties would only start associating themselves with their subjects in partly the early 1500's and fully by the 19th century.
There's a reason why nation-state ideologies are pretty mean to monarchies usually.
>>858904
He was bad for the powers of the time, ie. the monarchy why do you think the entirety of Europe banded against him. Napoleon also realized that the monarch powers never would let him be, thus the endless campaigns.
>>858834
You say that but look at the path humanity is taking. What happened to refined culture? What happened to true creativity? What happened to human expression without an agenda?
Modern culture is going down a bad path
>>859659
I bet the jews did this!
>>857506
yes
>>857506
apartheid actually.
>>859659
It was because of mass entertainment you idiot.
>>859659
>he's upset about the future he chose
>>857574
>your culture will be like 98% of population
I hope you at least get some enjoyment from spreading those lies. I can't imagine how someone could actually believe this when you just have to go outside in this capital or any other and see at least 50% arabs.
>>857574
>even is nobody died
i'm so fucking salty right now holy shit 6:30 i wake up first thing in the morning i read this bullshit, why
>>858689
>st paddies day
>>858638
Temujin and Stalin didn't fail miserably unlike Hitler.
>>861875
I think stalin was fairly miserable. Might be that's just expected in russia, though.
>>861719
Globalization ruined culture
>>857506
Well, considering his empire melted into the superior Persian culture, I would say yes.
>>857506
All Empires were exercises in Multiculturalism.
If you are an "Empire" consisting of just one race & culture...you're not one.
Genghis Khan’s united Mongol nation formed the foundation of the largest continuous land empire ever known. A wise statesman, Genghis also established Mongolian-style democracy that respected the ethnic and cultural diversity of his Empire. His government left many long-lasting legacies:
Literacy and official record-keeping began with the first written Mongolian script, created by adapting the alphabet of the Uighur people of western Mongolia.
Councils of leaders and a “cabinet” of advisors drawn from different tribes and nations were held to establish policies and make decisions.
Laws and directions, referred to as the Great Yasa, defined Mongol behavior.
Religious freedom was extended to all denominations in the belief that the support of religious leaders would foster good relations with the people.
Civil Service appointments were based on merit, regardless of nationality or connections.
International passports provided protection for the diplomatic representatives of any nation, facilitating safe passage and trade.
Rapid communication depended upon the Yam, an efficient mounted messenger service.
>>863664
How about Empires where cultures other than the dominant one are enslaved, castrated, worked to death and replaced?
>>863689
Still an empire since it recognized the fact that there is a periphery that is culturally disticnt.
Albeit one that doesn't last long.
>>857506
>is Genghis Khan's empire another example of a successful implementation of multiculturalism?
>is Genghis Khan's empire another example of a successful implementation of multiculturalism?
>another example of a successful implementation of multiculturalism
>another???
Fun fact: The Mongols allowed the greatest degree of religious freedom in the world while they ruled over Eurasia
anti-multiculturalists btfo
>>863716
>Religious freedom
I think it's comical that everyone sees freedom of religion as the peak of cultural enlightenment. Don't mind the genocides, the rapes or the destruction of some of the greatest cities in the world.
>>863731
self-hating mongol rape baby spotted
>>857506
> implementation of multiculturalism
They didn't implement multiculturalism, they found themselves in control over a multicultural empire and tried to impose the dominant culture where they could. An example might be the mixing of Persian and Hindustani languages under the Mughals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu
Multiculturalism is a great meme to troll racists, but it is irrational, no one with a triple digit IQ unironically preserves bad ideas from a culture just because it is from that culture, so...
>>863731
When did I claim they weren't a nation of pillaging rapists? I was just saying they were tolerant of other religions as long as they paid them.
>>857506
Why is it considered successful when it was so short-lived and fragmented upon his death?
>>863797
as a whole sure.
but those 'fragments' were pretty successful on the long run
>>863880
Yuan dynasty was the "most" successful and it too was also extremely short-lived in China. Face it, after Genghis and Kublai's times, the Mongols just continued to regress and fragment.
>>857506
Alexander and Genghis were the best examples.
>>863918
I think you mean Cyrus the Great and Genghis.
>>863797
It didn't fracture after his death. It fractured after Ogedei's death
