In 1206 A.D., the Mongol tribal assembly recognized Chinggis Khan as the supreme leader of the Great Mongol Nation. Khan was set on expanding the Mongolian Empire, and he achieved his goal. The problem is that expansion of the Mongolian Empire was brought about by war, mass killings, executions, and burning of cities carried out by Khan and his army. Khan gained the reputation of being a ruthless leader who, with his army, destroyed every settlement he came upon. The Mongolian Empire succeeded at becoming the largest land based empire in human history, but my question is about Khan's, and his army's, motivation for expanding in this way.
It would be easy to say that Khan was a leader filled with greed and sought expansion by any means necessary, but Khan has been recording as saying that he was motivated to unite the world into one entity. Most who seek to unite all people do not usually kill many of those people or burn their cities to the ground. Why did Khan think that his tactics would unite the planet? And what of his army? Did they see nothing wrong with Khan's plan? Perhaps Khan was such a charismatic leader that he led his people to believe they were doing what was right for themselves and for the rest of the world. Recently, we have seen a war that many did not agree with, but continues to rage on. Maybe Khan's army was simply doing what they were told to do by their leader out of respect for their empire, as we see many soldiers do today. Or maybe they continued to fight because they knew they would be protected under Khan's leadership.
In the fifteen century, people in all of Australia, much of Siberia, and parts of Africa were choosing to live in similar ways to that of Paleolithic man. Many still led a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and chose not to develop an agricultural system. All this despite the fact that the majority of the world was living in much more industrialized communities. What caused these people to choose to live in fairly primitive ways when most of the world had long since abandoned such practices? As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The people who continued a largely Paleolithic lifestyle lived in areas with an abundance of food from plant and animal sources. These people did not need agriculture to obtain what they required. So, maybe they felt that since they had access to everything they needed for survival, there was no point in "advancing" they way most of the world had. Or maybe they simply preferred their uncomplicated lifestyle free of war, class struggles, or the demands of a hierarchy. To be honest, I don't blame them. Their way of living, although more physically arduous than others, seems to have been much more peaceful and calm. It seems as though these fifteen century Paleolithic people were just Type B personalities, happy to live with lower levels of stress, in a Type A world.
Similar to the fifteenth century Paleolithic peoples, the Igbo and the Iroquois people, of West Africa and America respectively, decided not to go the way of the mainstream during the fifteenth century. They did develop an agricultural system, but that was where they drew the line. Both the Igbo and the Iroquois avoided becoming part of an empire or civilization, and the Igbo people were even proud and boasted that they had no kings. The Igbo and Iroquois lived in small communities and did not have a political authority, class systems, and gender inequality. They continued to live as their ancestors had, and it seems logical to follow the traditions of one's elders, but part of me wonders why these people were content to live this way while most others were always on the hunt for greater innovation. Didn't they want the conveniences that the people within more evolved civilizations had? What about the safety offered to citizens of an empire? It is conceivable that the Igbo and the Iroquois were communities so steeped in tradition that a departure from their way of life would be seen as a betrayal to their ancestors, but wasn't this the case for all people at one time? I wonder why many abandoned their ways of living in search of something better while some small groups decided against this.
I (obviously) will never know the answers to these questions for sure, but perhaps the answer lies in a part of the human condition. Humans simply do not always like to change or challenge what they consider to be the norm. Khan's army may have fought wars over expanding the Mongolian empire because they felt loyalty to their leader, and that they would be protected by him. The people who retained a Paleolithic lifestyle could have felt that they had everything they needed and, therefore, had no cause to change. The agriculturalists of the fifteenth century could have felt so strongly tied to their traditions they decided to resist becoming part of a larger civilization. As humans, when we are comfortable with our situation, we often prefer things to remain the same, even if "the same" means violent, more physically taxing, and without modern conveniences. But where would we as humans be now if it were for those few who were not afraid to break out of the status quo?
No comments:
Post a Comment