Dear to Whom It May Concern:
In the article “Genghis Khan Rules Mongolia Again, in a P.R. Campaign,” NY Times has, through its misrepresentation of Chinggis Khaan’s (the true spelling of his name, not the Russian version used everywhere) influence and general opinion regarding him in Mongolia, and insincere quotation of this hapless Mongolian guy Toguldur Munkochir, lost credibility with me (and a lot of other Mongolians, I am sure).
Dan Levin wrote of the Mongolian “rebranding” of Chinggis Khaan as “with a focus on his lighter side”–in describing the commercial use of this beloved leader’s image. Mongolians are not “rebranding” their founding father and leader; the popularity of Chinggis Khaan seems a rebranding only to those who are new to the debate regarding Chinggis Khaan’s character.
There is nothing “light” about Chinggis Khaan, who is seen both as a barbarian and a visionary, who has brought on slaughters and has made possible the trade and education without which Renaissance would not have occurred in Europe, who has led Mongolians to its mark on world history that today still makes him the most famous Mongol ever, and who has been labeled a barbarian because of his success (for no one sues a homeless man) which he gained through brilliant military genius and leadership, marked by vigilance, violence, and vigorous passion for justice. If he was cruel, he is still loved by Mongolians.
Dan Levin’s leveling Chinggis Khaan down to a brand, is to put the cart before the horse. But this was not what induced me to respond with an email to you. I was shocked when I read the last parts of that article and was sure that the ending quote was taken totally out of context.
This is the ending to which I am referring.
“Mongolian tradition respects our grand ancestors’ names,” she said. “To really honor him, it’s much better to use his name on only premium merchandise.”
Other Mongolians skew a bit more toward realpolitik in their devotion to Genghis Khan, even if they are happy to drink to his memory.
“He was a cruel man but he led our country to greatness,” said Toguldur Munkochir, 25, a bank teller unwinding at the Chinggis Khaan bar later that night.“If you look at Lincoln, Hitler and Julius Caesar, it’s kind of the same thing.”
There must be a mistake which resulted from a combination of the following;
- Toguldur Munkochir had too much to drink;
- he had poor English;
- he was answering a misleading question;
- he was appeasing a customer who had negative views of Chinggis Khaan; and,
- the reporter was trying to get a “balanced” perspective because he had overwhelmingly positive reviews of Chinggis Khaan and he didn’t believe it would come off as legitimate material for professional journalism, and therefore pursued another perspective at cost of a legitimate source.
The guy quoted was not at all representative of even a minority of Mongolians; he had a screw missing, and had the audacity to name the other three famous people in history he could think of at the time, as “kind of the same thing” in his limited understanding of history–whereas the similarity stops at the fact that every NY Times reader has heard of them. That is NOT realpolitik. That is just plain ignorance. It does not reveal any implied pragmatism or political insight to the person who spoke out of ignorance and/or was “unwound” from his day of work as a bank teller by drinking alcohol in the name of Chinggis Khaan. I hate to sound harsh here, but quoting the bottom denominator does not make intelligent reporting.
I will not even go in detail about why Chinggis Khaan is not like Julius Caesar, Hitler, or like Lincoln; or whether these men were cruel. The first part is too obvious to discuss and the arguments regarding whether someone was cruel are too commonly distorted by historic revisionists and post-modern relativism. Besides, addressed outside of scholarly circles, it is even easier to revile or label someone, with undue consideration.
Branding is a form of a labeling that seeks to engender a consumer’s loyalty and response. While Chinggis Khaan’s image may be seen as an effective brand to an outsider, he is not someone Mongolians would evoke without pride. The use of his image in Mongolia, while a sales tool to tourists, is often an homage to the person in the domestic market. The reason is this: the individuals quoted in the article are just not representative of Mongolians.
Mongolians are pretty homogenous people. Vast majority are Khalkha Mongols. They speak Mongolian and understand one another even through various dialects spoken by the minority who are not Khalkha Mongols. They share a common history dating back thousands of years as nomadic peoples. Generally speaking, they look alike as compared with countries like the US where there are strong immigrant populations or intermingling between various races, although this is changing rapidly in this generation. To top this off, if there is one thing that the Mongolians are the most homogenous about, it is that they are proud of their hero and founding father Chinggis Khaan.
Mongolians see right through the various revisionist histories tarnishing Chinggis Khaan’s character and accomplishments that other countries and governments tried to impose, including accounts of him being 7-foot tall, eating human flesh (a la Turkic scribes from 12th century). Mongolians have held Chinggis Khaan in high esteem even through the Communist years–even when some of them were proud to be Communist leaders. They know, as Christians know the stories in their bible, the Secret History chronicling Chinggis Khaan’s birth, rise, and death. They are passionate about defending what it means to be a Mongolian–and you cannot be a Mongolian without having immense respect for Chinggis Khaan, PERIOD.
You see, the respect for Chinggis Khaan is beyond that of tradition or ancestry, as referred in the article by another misleading quotation written into the article out of context, “Mongolian tradition respects our grand ancestors’ names.” This respect is not even just because of nationalism. Of course, it helps that Chinggis Khaan created the Mongolian Nation out of many warring tribes. However, on top of this, the respect and devotion to Chinggis Khaan is born out of having knowledge of the history about his life and his accomplishments, his zeal for justice, his harsh determination, and his wisdom. Chinggis Khaan’s images are not an indoctrination effort like those of Mao and Hitler; his stories are not for a child’s understanding like the one of Washington and his cherry tree; and he is not a perusing subject matter of “light” interpretations in Mongolia. The historiography surrounding Chinggis Khaan may be clouded, but he can never be taken lightly or be seen as just a brand or an icon, no matter how many people use the image to further their businesses or their political messages.
Mongolians have one of the highest literacy rates in the developing world, and are probably some of the most suspicious of manipulation and coercion by political interests, at this time–having come through a rough transition from Communism through “Democracy” which ended up a dissemination of certain vital economic interests to handful of parties and in a rapid disparity of wealth. They are smart people and they are questioning more than ever. (How else are the mining agreements been stalled for over 5 years and Rio Tinto executives believe it will be at least another 5 years before they come to agreement?) Perhaps that is why Chinggis Khaan is even more a hero today, having been able to uplift his people from obscurity, give direction among chaos, and in a world where savagery and self-interest marked all wars, his decrees were not just ruthless and unswerving, but also included religious tolerance, starting schools, giving artisans unprecedented respect, protecting trade routes, and rewarding loyalty even in his enemies’ subordinates. There is a place for him today in the hearts of Mongolians–not as a brand or as “same kind” of person as Hitler.
Please apologize for publishing a misleading article.
Sincerely,
Misheel Chuluun.
