Matt Lakeman

Nonfiction Analysis – Page 2 – Matt Lakeman

2020-01-22 · 00:00 UTC ·John Doe ·2 min read

Brief

This is an introductory post where Matt Lakeman sets up his analysis of Jack Weatherford's controversial book about Genghis Khan. Lakeman frames the discussion around a fundamental tension in Mongol historiography: how to weigh the empire's innovations and economic contributions against its unprecedented scale of killing (possibly the highest percentage of global population killed by any military force in history). He contrasts Dan Carlin's experience of being penalized for focusing on economic benefits while ignoring genocide, with his own college experience where a TA enthusiastically promoted Mongol achievements while the professor provided sobering reminders about their death toll. Lakeman positions Weatherford as extremely pro-Mongol, arguing that despite the book's straightforward historical survey format, it contains an implicit argument about how the Mongols shaped modernity. The post serves as a teaser for a longer analysis where Lakeman promises to explain both Weatherford's thesis and why Genghis Khan achieved such historical prominence, while maintaining some skepticism about the overall argument.

Why it matters

Matt Lakeman introduces his analysis of Jack Weatherford's pro-Mongol historical perspective:

Key details

  • [academic debate] Scholars split on whether Mongol economic/cultural contributions justify overlooking massive death toll
  • [book review] Weatherford's 'Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World' presents strongly pro-Mongol interpretation
  • [historical argument] Author plans to explain Weatherford's thesis that Mongols created foundations of modern world
Source evidence

title: Nonfiction Analysis – Page 2 – Matt Lakeman
author: John Doe
contenttype: article
publication: Matt Lakeman
published: 2020-01-22T00:00:00
sourceurl: https://mattlakeman.org/category/nonfiction-analysis/page/2/

word_count: 424

In Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast on the Mongols, he recounts taking a class in college on Genghis Khan where he wrote a paper about some of the economic benefits of the Mongol Empire’s reign, and his Chinese professors gave him a bad grade for overlooking the tens of millions of people the nomads killed to acquire their massive empire. Carlin argued that the Mongol death toll wasn’t the point of the essay and it was unfair to grade him that way, but the teacher said it was morally inexcusable to overlook blatant genocide in this context.

I had a vaguely similar encounter in college, but in the other direction. I took a class on Mongol history taught by a professor who was famous in the field (he had spent years unsuccessfully searching for Genghis Khan’s body in Mongolia), and he used to make good-natured jokes about how one of his TAs was an unabashed Mongol fan. The TA didn’t just think the Mongols were interesting, he genuinely believed they were a force for good in the world, and when giving lectures he would go on at lengths rattling off the accomplishments and stats of the Mongol Empire, only to be occasionally interrupted by the main professor who would remind everyone that the Mongols probably killed a higher percentage of the earth’s population than any military force in history.

I just finished listening to the audiobook of Jack Weatherford’s book, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. When I started it, I wondered if the publisher forced that rather click-baity title on Weatherford. After all, though it’s a well-written and entertaining account, it is a fairly straightforward historical survey of Genghis Khan’s life and legacy. The book never concisely states what the “modern world” is or how exactly Genghis Khan made it.

But now that I finished it, I think Weatherford may have chosen the title after all, because he is about as pro-Mongol as one can get. And though the book is more of a historical account than an argument for a grand historical/cultural/societal explanation for the modern world, there is a faint outline for such a thing somewhere in there.

Even though I don’t totally buy it, I’ll do my best to explain Weatherford’s argument. I’ll also try to explain how Genghis Khan was so awesome (at least in a purely amoral, achievement-based sense) and why he’s one of the most famous people in all of history.

Continue reading “Mongol Apologia – How Genghis Khan Made the Modern World” →