I seem to remember the story being that it's actually Beijing-style (the creator moved to Taiwan) but that was too sensitive at the time so hence the "mongolian" thing.
I don’t follow Yud so maybe there’s some history of whataboutism BUT
taken at face value does that idea not line up with the zeitgeist?
Basically moving away from the “great man” narrative of history and
critically evaluating if we want to enshrine immoral historical
figures?
I think it's the fact that he has to state he's not being ironic. He's got a point, but comparing Genghis to slavery is iffy because slavery is still in living memory while the Mongols and their descendant empires have had centuries to get propagandized and whitewashed. Genghis's actions don't make peoples' lives worse today, but there's a direct causal link between modern day race relations and the Civil War, so he seems tone deaf.
Sure, this is a valid conversation to have, but is now the right time?
I think he has a point, generally glorifying horrid historical figures is not something we should be doing.
On the other hand, yes it has been very long, plus those places aren't Mongolian they're Chinese.
If centuries later there is some galactic confederation with aliens and stuff and a bunch of people decide to name their restaurants after their former conqueror... eh, silly but maybe not other people's business?
I think the problem here is that none of the groups that were historically oppressed by Genghis Khan are still mad about it, it's not like the citizens of Baghdad in 2020 are toiling under the yoke of a Mongol apartheid state or anything.
IIRC Dan Carlin wrote an undergrad thesis about Mongol battle strategy, but his professor of Chinese descent gave him a mediocre grade because he didn’t talk about how much suffering the Mongols caused. DC implied that the professor took the issue very personally. This leads me to believe it might be a thing.
IIRC in 2003 or so some people in the Middle East were comparing Bush to Hulagu Khan....so the memory of the atrocities may not be all that dead
OTOH the people of Merv and Balkh and other cities were completely wiped out and are not commenting on the matter at all.
IOW I kinda agree with Yudkowsky for once.
It's also that the Mongolian people themselves have spent all of history since the collapse of the Yuan Dynasty (hundreds of years) as victims of imperialism rather than perpetrators of it. Right up to the present day where Mongolia is the subject of great power intrigues between Russia and China.
The Chinese are engaging in settler colonialism in inner Mongolia and ethnic Mongolians are subject to anti central Asian racism in Russia.
I guess it would be better if they had less problematic national icons? But I'm not going to get too mad about it.
Eh, the mongols weren't really subjugated until the Qing. EDIT: Well, it's a bit more complicated than that considering the peculiarities of the Qing state, but basically, the mongols remained a more-or-less independent and dangerous actor during the entire Ming Dynasty (even sacked Beijing)
Hmm, reading it further it looks like they retained some degree of autonomy until Bogd Khan died, even if there was settler colonialism going on under the Qing. There was even a Mongolian collaborationist prince fighting for the Japanese in WW2, still I feel like my point had some merit even if I got the dates wrong by a couple of hundred years or so (lol).
I gotta give credit tho, the first response is funny:
How about the fact that Mongolian BBQ is neither Mongolian nor BBQ but, rather, Taiwanese stir fry.
Loved the Great Khan’s spot at my hometown mall but, oof, that big-tooth, side-eyeing mascot is racist af.
TIL I’m blocked by him
Never even interacted with him and I’ve seen his tweets before so it has to be at least semi-recent.
Next on Yud’s list: Chinese places that have “Ming” in the name. I mean, he has a harem! And he’s merciless!
The right: ‘has cancel culture gone to far?’
Yud: https://youtu.be/wRnSnfiUI54
Very wok-e of him…
I don’t follow Yud so maybe there’s some history of whataboutism BUT taken at face value does that idea not line up with the zeitgeist? Basically moving away from the “great man” narrative of history and critically evaluating if we want to enshrine immoral historical figures?