|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on Sept 16, 2007 7:05:33 GMT 3
How many killed is irrelevant. Numbers matter. It's a matter of arguement what was "lawful" and what was not. For instance, Genghis announced a law according to which he will spare the lives of the population that don't resist, and slaughter those who resist. So according to him, the killings were "lawful" and justified. Many of the nomadic invasions were the retaliations for the sedentary people's expeditions into the steppe. So you could argue that the nomadic conquests were made to prevent the sedentary expansion into the steppe. Stop viewing your ancestors as the scapegoats of history! "conquer vast land"?Stop flip-flopping! First time you brought up the Nazis was when talking about killing people. Yes, you are influenced by the Western opinion of nomads too much. It's unbearable for me to hear such terms for my ancestors from another nomadic descendant. Nothing is impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Sept 16, 2007 13:35:35 GMT 3
Well, I have read that Genghis killed alot of chinese, because many Shamans told him to do so and it was also a racial/ethnical question.
Sorry if I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by tuguldur on Sept 16, 2007 17:26:10 GMT 3
They say there is always two side to the story. BAWIR$AQ you seem to think your side of the story is the true!
I'm questioning other side of the story and this makes me a disrespectful?
Like I said, I'm probably wrong with some of my views but you seem to turning blind eye to some of the obivous facts of Any War and movtivation and claiming I'm degrading my ancestors rather then tackling the real questions.
I guess its the easy way out answer without debating!
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 16, 2007 21:03:15 GMT 3
The thing is that, eventhough most of the Turkic peoples lived in Mongolia a millenium ago (and earlier), they were not Mongols, as most of the Mongols did not live in Mongolia at that time (they lived in Manchuria and Southeastern Siberia). Plus, the terms Mongol and Mongoloid are very different.
|
|
|
Post by Bor Chono on Sept 17, 2007 6:52:03 GMT 3
I wish to answer to these questions : Are you proud that your Ancestors killed many people?-Surely! it makes U feel proud if U know your traditions. Well look at the Tsahar wrestlers! their champions hang many colorful cloths on their shoulders. Each cloth symbolizes victory over another person(=dead person). Custom comes from old times when we used to collect scalps & ears to hang on our soulders. An Ancient Mongol worrior was proud of such war thropies & believed that each piece adds power. (I wonder if Mongol women liked it!?) btw true Mongols like to be called a Barbarian & it translated as powerful & savage cuz Mongols don`t have other ppl to call Barbarian. And is it not wrong to kill people?-Surely hun must not kill hun. And surely hun will not give up without fight. ;D So how would you describe the terror we caused during the Mongol Empire in ONE word?in the game Age of Empires : "Mongol!..run for your alives!" Can you remind me what was the actual reason for killing and conquering?If U are Borjigin U must know it. Guardian(=Halha) Mongols have duty to guard the culture not judge or humilate other`s culture. If other culture is realy treatening ours this culture must be destroyed. What makes Halha ppl so proud?=Halha ppl claim to have the most advanced culture among 4 Mongols. And only Halha Mongols managed to claim it`s independance. Who is keeping all those ancient traditions? -Guardians! Traditionally Halha & Buryat men must carry a knife(=Het hutga) a symbol of winner. Losers eat meat by hands -that`s old Yosa.(Even Zanabazar was painted with knife) Look at this Turkic statue! what is he want to tell us? A Mongol can answer He is telling us that once he was the winner here. (btw Tsahar culture is rising with some help of Chinese tourism, they were not good at songs & poems! now they are getting better & better.Now they too have hip hop & rock bands) BTW We Mongols don`t like to hear word "Mongols our brothers" from Chinese. Like this Modern Kazaks don`t like to hear word "Kazaks our brothers" from Mongols. Maybe many Mongols don`t know it. And lastly to Tuguldur! read the Yasa(=Yosa) of our forum! Just don`t be a Barbarian here!
|
|
|
Post by mediator on Sept 26, 2007 13:37:30 GMT 3
This post is more to bawirsaq than to anyone else really since I'm used to talking about this with him. You seemed to have a problem with one poster saying "Kazaks are Mongols!" Based on the context of it, I can understand your reaction. For example, if a Mongolian was trying to claim some other person as part of his nationality, that would be annoying and incorrect. But you have stated many times before about emphasizing which meaning of Mongol to use. This can be difficult as the meaning of Mongol has become confused and diluted by many ignorant people. But before I begin, we all have to understand that nomadic society works very differently from sedentary ones, so attributes like race, ethnicity, and language are essentially useless when trying to differentiate from one tribe/clan/group from the other, at least in terms of origin. Basic anthropology deals with nomadic societies and have been known to be highly dynamic societies. They operate in bands and are very mobile in their day to day activities. So when we talk about Mongols, we have to make sure about the original meaning of Mongol. The meaning Mongol is very different from the word Mongolian, which represents a citizen of Mongolia or someone who can trace back their grandparents to the motherland. Mongol itself is an ancient term initially attributed to a small tribe of region we know of Mongolia today. One important person from this tribe is Genghis Khan. Now, by saying he was a Mongol, we know very little of his race, ethnicity, or language. This is also true for the other tribes of steppes such as the Zhalair, Naiman, Merkit, Keryait, etc. It was not uncommon for people to go back and forth between tribes/bands if it was more advantageous to join them, or kidnapping women from either tribe, allying or fighting with each other, intermarrying, living together in one productive area of land, etc. Its fairly obvious that the steppes was a genuine melting pot and that racially speaking (in the social construct sense), the predominant race of these Central Asian tribes were Asiatic/Mongoloid(if one is forced to use an archaic term). Now that we got that out of the way, we can conclude that there is no common language or racial attribute to use as a basis to differentiate from the different tribes. Tribes were neither uniform or static, and it was ordinary for tribes to be formed outside of kinship. After this, we know that Genghis Khan united the various tribes of the steppes as one, which we know as Mongols. Mongol was an umbrella term, a social identity to group all the nomadic steppe warriors as one, the next great Central Asian phenomenon after Huns and GokTurks. These Mongols invaded many lands and replaced populations in Central Asia such as modern day KZ, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, etc. The soldiers and their descendants of Khan's Mongols set up their legal systems in these foreign, expansionist lands, and settled there permanently. Even you have said that KZ has the largest concentration of Qongirats, Naimans, Merkits, Keryaits, Zhailars whom were tribes that were assimilated into the larger group, the Mongols. In central Asian tradition, to switch from one tribe to another, you usually lose allegiance to your former commander of the tribe and adopt your new war chief as your leader, in order to be formally part of the tribe. So, after all of this, who are the descendants of Mongols? Is it not the descendants of the soldiers of Genghis Khan? These soldiers who came from different tribes, religions, spoke diff. languages, backgrounds, etc. came to be formed as one united people? Can you really look at all the history and conclude that only the Mongolians of Mongolia are the descendants of the ancient 13th century Mongols? I find that hard to believe. The only thing we can be sure of is that the race of these people were predominantly Turko-Mongol (Altaic Asiatic). The came together, fought together, and then diverged into different peoples after the super-era of Mongols had subsided. But I do admit that it is rather confusing, since Mongolia is the only country to use the name of ancient Mongols, even though they are not the only descendants of Genghis Khan's Mongol people.
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on Sept 26, 2007 18:29:47 GMT 3
My friend,
Words change meanings, and you have to be careful while using them. Today's Mongols and Mongols of the 13th century are different. So are the "Turks", "Tatars", and other nomadic names.
Many Kazaks descent from the Genghis Khan's armies of mixed origin, but Kazaks as a nation formed centuries later from various tribes. That doesn't make the whole nation "Mongols".
|
|
|
Post by mediator on Sept 26, 2007 22:50:58 GMT 3
My friend, Words change meanings, and you have to be careful while using them. Today's Mongols and Mongols of the 13th century are different. So are the "Turks", "Tatars", and other nomadic names. Many Kazaks descent from the Genghis Khan's armies of mixed origin, but Kazaks as a nation formed centuries later from various tribes. That doesn't make the whole nation "Mongols". That's fine and dandy, I totally understand what you mean by that. I mentioned the many peoples that used to form the Mongols had turned into different nations and groups after the Empire was subsiding. But no one is really a Mongol in today's world, as Mongol is an ancient word. But Mongol descent however is different and doesn't mean you have to be Mongolian. Just like how America was peopled by persons from Europe, Kazakstan was peopled by persons from Eastern Altai since the 8th century ACE, including Genghis Khan's armies which contributed greatly. Most Americans today call themselves as Americans, not British, German, or Irish. But it is correct to say that many Americans have English descent and that their English ancestors shaped and defined the country politically and socially. The same can be said for many Kazaks who descended from Mongol soldiers in the 13th century who ruled and shaped the politics of the Golden Horde. Of course these soldiers came to new lands and diverged over the years, but I don't think it is anthropologically or historically incorrect to say that a substantial amount of Kazaks have Mongol descent, soldiers who came from Eastern Altai to Western Altai. Just like I said before, most European colonials agree that they are the same race, white, and furthermore that they have some sort of colonial descent, Anglo-Saxon for example. But that doesn't mean they haven't formed new nations and mixed with various other people to form a new kind of nation. I'm just saying for historicity's sake that it is not a federal offense to imply that a substantial amount of Kazaks are of Mongol descent, meaning they have ancestors who fought in Genghis Khan's armies and settled and ruled in Central Asia. But in any case, we can pretty much agree we're both Altaic Asian people with both Turkic and Mongol influences. And I know that people form their own nations independently after many years. But there is nothing wrong with saying that we share common ancestors, as provided with scientific and historical proof.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 28, 2007 14:14:00 GMT 3
Hello Mediator, welcome aboard
|
|
|
Post by mediator on Sept 30, 2007 13:21:01 GMT 3
Ok, what's a fun way to put this situation and will be easier to understand for a lot of people. Let's do the Mongol Empire in terms of American history, yay!
So, we have Genghis Khan and his new united peoples, the Mongols, an umbrella term for all the former tribes to get rid of tribalism and internecine warfare. In retrospect, let's consider these people the British(Anglo-Saxons, English, redcoats, whatever). Mongolia will be like Great Britain and the Mongol Empire likened to the British Empire.
Then we have Kazakhstan. The western frontier of Central Asia, basically the new world to old world Altaic people. The indigenous Persian people can be the native Americans. The Turkic tribes that came like the Kipchaks and Cumans and conquered these poor people will be sort of like.... Dutch, German, whatever, some kind of Germanic people related to the English. And let's throw some English settlers in there for the hell of it, like the Jamestown people, who will represent the old world eastern Altai Mongolic-Turkic people.
So now we have the Genghis Khan and his invasion of the Western frontier. The British come in heavy numbers to America and begin to populate the Americas(KZ) with English settler(Mongol soldiers) and impose their legal system and cultural values, along with appointed English officials and a common crown to trace back to(Jochi, Genghis Khan).
After awhile, the English settlers(Mongol soldiers) mingle with the older European settlers(former Turkic people) and begin to form a distinct identity. While many English settlers(Mongols) still consider themselves as loyal subjects to the crown(Genghis Khan), others are interested in creating their own identity. So out of the Golden Horde comes a new nation comprising of indigenous(Persian, NA), old stock(Turkic, Mongolic), and recent colonists(Mongol soldiers). These people shall become the Kazak, or Americans.
While the American legal system and constitution is heavily Anglo-Saxon influenced, there was a congressional vote to make German the official language, losing by only one vote. This is because there were more Germans than English people. But in our case, the preferred language changed from Mongolian to Turkic. While the Golden Horde was heavily Mongol influenced politically and culturally, the newly formed Turkic people, Kazak(Americans) also began to take shape.
So even though Americans are their own people today, they still have a lot of remnants of their colonial past such as their legal system, philosophy, culture, traditions etc. This can also be seen in Kazakstan where they have a distinct class of nobles related to Genghis Khan, recognition of Jochi as a national figure, and incorporation of former Mongol tribal people.
But then, something went bad. The English didn't want this situation to happen and sent out their armies to take back control. We can observe this with the massive Dzungar and Oirat armies invading Kazakstan, the former very Mongolians and the latter very Turkic. Although the Dzungar Oirats were well equipped with cannons and muskets, they still got their butts kicked by the colonists, the Kazaks. With that, Kazaks became their own people and own nation, and should therefore be recognized as such, American is not British.
So all of this is not meant to be historically accurate or anything, its just my interpretation of Altaic history and helps me to understand things more easily. This kind of thinking allows me to think that there are some Kazaks of Mongol descent and that Kazakstan was influenced by the Mongol Empire and might be a good reason the country still retains core Turko-Mongol Altaic aspects. And btw, both of these parties were white(Mongoloid, Turko-Mongol), lol.
|
|