First, yeah, sure, Mongolians saw things through modern Euro-centric racism to say "we are all the same, there are no Mongolians or Chinese, only backwards Asians". Second, your defense of Native American genocide basically boils down to "your honor, we didn't consider them human when we genocided them"
I don't understand your first point. Are you suggesting the ghengis khan's conquest was informed by "euro-centric" learnings or influence? I'll need a source on that.
Re the second point I wasn't claiming anyone was or wasn't human, I was indicating that expansionist conquest occured in an era of expansionist conquest. A trait not solely owned by Europeans/Americans. China has a massive history of conflict along ethnic and tribal lines, and a massive history of conquest too.
Conquest, war and "dehumanization" is evidenced by their borders, everyone's borders, everywhere. Throughout history.
No one is clean, and no one is a hero.
The post was very clearly saying that Ghengis Khan and the post-Mongolian Chinese state is a worse form of conquest and murder because they were conquering and killing their own people.
But the US was killing Native Americans which weren't citizens, so it is not as bad as killing your own people like the Mongolian/Chinese/Mao.
Uh, ghengis Khan certainly killed a lot of non mongols. He pretty strongly justified the conquest on such terms. (that, and loyalty/fealty). Many leaders through time did.
All that said, consider football.
A point is a point, but an own goal stings worse. Not because the opposing players are subhuman, but you were supposed to do best by your own.
First, yeah, sure, Mongolians saw things through modern Euro-centric racism to say "we are all the same, there are no Mongolians or Chinese, only backwards Asians". Second, your defense of Native American genocide basically boils down to "your honor, we didn't consider them human when we genocided them"
I don't understand your first point. Are you suggesting the ghengis khan's conquest was informed by "euro-centric" learnings or influence? I'll need a source on that.
Re the second point I wasn't claiming anyone was or wasn't human, I was indicating that expansionist conquest occured in an era of expansionist conquest. A trait not solely owned by Europeans/Americans. China has a massive history of conflict along ethnic and tribal lines, and a massive history of conquest too.
Conquest, war and "dehumanization" is evidenced by their borders, everyone's borders, everywhere. Throughout history.
No one is clean, and no one is a hero.
The post was very clearly saying that Ghengis Khan and the post-Mongolian Chinese state is a worse form of conquest and murder because they were conquering and killing their own people.
But the US was killing Native Americans which weren't citizens, so it is not as bad as killing your own people like the Mongolian/Chinese/Mao.
Uh, ghengis Khan certainly killed a lot of non mongols. He pretty strongly justified the conquest on such terms. (that, and loyalty/fealty). Many leaders through time did.
All that said, consider football. A point is a point, but an own goal stings worse. Not because the opposing players are subhuman, but you were supposed to do best by your own.