By now it should become obvious to observers that the decision to cancel historical figures in the West is driven by anti-white animus. The legacies of historical figures like Christopher Columbus and Thomas Jefferson can’t be discussed without activists arguing that they were problematic characters. Such figures are not judged as products of their time but rather as villains who are unworthy of forgiveness. Neither are we allowed to appreciate the achievements of personalities tainted as villains by woke activists.
However, whenever we are talking about non-white personalities nuance becomes important. Books authored by Marie Favereau and Jack Weatherford offering a balanced appraisal of the Mongol Empire have received glowing reviews from respected outlets. History reveals that Genghis Khan was a tyrant who often killed subordinates for flippant reasons, but notwithstanding his psychopathic tendencies, he demonstrated impressive leadership abilities, and celebrating his capabilities must never be seen as endorsing atrocities committed by his regime.
Distinguished Professor Jeffrey Garten can outline Khan’s contribution to globalization without people thinking that he is an apologist for tyranny: “The international networks of free trade pioneered by Khan and his successors, changed the world in underappreciated ways: The printing press, gunpowder, and the compass were all brought to Europe on Mongol trade networks.”
In another insightful review, Nathaniel Scharping comments on his complex legacy: “From early in his military career, the Khan promoted a meritocracy, upending the traditional aristocracy of the Mongolian steppes. It was a policy that would continue throughout his rule and after his death. Genghis Khan also promoted religious freedom and banned the use of torture throughout his kingdom. After his death, the Mongol Empire would nurture trade routes and diplomatic relations that helped sustain its strength and brought news and knowledge from the outside world to Asia.”
The reputation of Genghis Khan has become so refined that Carl Hartmann thinks that if we should call anyone in central Asia over 800 years ago a feminist, Genghis Khan would be the prime candidate for not relegating women to an inferior status. Presenting a dispassionate assessment of Khan’s legacy is indeed noteworthy, so why can’t white people defend the legacies of men like Columbus and Jefferson without inviting venom?
Like the British and the French, the Mongols presided over a vast empire entailing the subjugation of conquered peoples and the evidence suggests that the Mongol invasion had an adverse impact on Iran, but for some strange reason contemporary historians are uninterested in shaming the Mongols for past ills. Although writers like Abbas Edalat and Ira Lapidus are rather specific in explaining how the Mongol invasions retarded conquered regions and economists are obsessed with studying the effects of European imperialism they are unwilling to explore the implications of the Mongol invasions with equal fervor.
But the mindset of activists and disingenuous academics is quite simple once we appreciate the uniqueness of Western civilization. The Western world was the first region to modernize and it is also the progenitor of many innovations. As a result, Westerners unlike racial minorities in the West do not occupy the position of the underdog. For the past 500 years, the West has been the most tremendous force in the world some think that it is only appropriate for white people to atone for the sins of their ancestors by continuously genuflecting to demands that their culture be erased.
Quite disappointing is that few on the right are challenging this swindle. When conservatives refuse to push back against calls to remove statues of Robert E Lee and other figures associated with the confederacy, they are doing the bidding of illiberal and misinformed activists. Because the culture of the pre-civil war South is deeper than reverence for slavery and racial hierarchy understanding the rationale for embracing confederate symbols shouldn’t be difficult for mainstream conservatives and libertarians.
If people have a right to self-expression and whites are people, then we should afford them the right to celebrate their heritage without harassment. Some supporters of confederate symbols could be racist, but even so, many are decent people and must never be deprived of their right to self-expression. Libertarians and conservatives only cede the moral high ground to unreasonable activists when they compromise history for social prestige.
