Just need to point out that this view is extremely one sided and narrow minded. Reading the Wikipedia entry gives a much more nuanced picture
"Genghis Khan is credited with bringing the Silk Road under one cohesive political environment. This allowed increased communication and trade between the West, Middle East and Asia, thus expanding the horizons of all three cultural areas. Some historians have noted that Genghis Khan instituted certain levels of meritocracy in his rule, was tolerant of religions and explained his policies clearly to all his soldiers.[46] In Turkey, Genghis Khan is looked on as a great military leader, and it is popular for male children to carry his title as name.47 Traditionally Genghis Khan had been revered for centuries among the Mongols and among certain other ethnic groups such as the Turks, largely because of his association with Mongol statehood, political and military organization, and his historic victories in war. He eventually evolved into a larger-than-life figure chiefly among the Mongols and is still considered the symbol of Mongolian culture."
Generally, he is considered as a heroic figure in Mongolia and Turkey, as well as some parts of China and Afganistan. In the other parts of those two countries as well as in Iran he is disliked.
Also, any evalutation of an historical figure cannot really be made in an anacronistic fashion (this is called "presentism" by historians). In particular, obviously one cannot place the blame of cultural phenomenan on the shoulders of a single individual. I don't know of a single ancient nation that was in principle against the concept of aggressive war for the purpose of conquest (this is why we had a Macedonian Empire, a Roman Empire, etc.), and certainly that was the case for the ancient steppes tribes. He was simply much more successful at it. But when we judge, for example, Socrates, we don't take the fact that slave ownership and sexual activities with boys were accepted elements of Greek culture, because they were just that, elements of culture, it's not as if Socrates himself had concoted them as part of an evil plan to "corrupt" his society. He was, simply, not the cause of those practices. Likewise, you don't exactly get a medal for thinking that slavery is not okay, and that war should be relegated to a last measure defensive activity. Those are simply cultural elements that you absorb by living in a modern society. If you were transported back in time as a toddler, and a newborn Mongol was brought to the present, your value system would be completely swapped, and each would see things with the eyes of the time periods you would be brought up in.
Of course, occasionally you have particularly insightful moral teachers. For example, Thomas Paine was against slavery when the practice were still commonplace. That's why he gets a point. On the other hand, Joe Black born twenty years ago down the street doesn't, because it didn't take him any effort, he made no contribution to moral progress. My historian friends at RenaissanceMathematicus (http://thonyc.wordpress.com/) get routinely pissed because of such cases of "presentism" by people they think they are historians because they read "one" book, or worse one wikipedia page, and the general public always too ready to go for overly simplified judgments and explanations... until now I took it with a grain of salt, because the point that one should compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges, and look at thigs in their proper context, seemed to be self evident to me... turns out I was wrong about this point beign completely obvious and uncontroversial, because this is already the second historical manga I saw where some individual has decided to complain because oh, THOUSANDS of years ago people had a different outlook and a different set of moral values.
Consider for a second, please, that if we apply this reasoning recursively and think about how people a thousand years from now will look at us, and people a thousand years after them will look at them, and so on, they would conclude that we were barbaric monsters, and the ones after them will think the same of them, and so on, arriving at the absurd conclusion that no human that ever lived has ever been anything but a revolting monter beyond redemption. This would be the most extreme form of relativism, because then moral categories would become essentially useless, since they wouldn't allow us to differentiate between anything (and categories are made exactly to allow for such valutations).I don't pretent that everyone becomes a professional historian, but having a more open minded and nuanced view of the situation for a change wouldn't hurt (at the very least, it saves one from appearing like a hick or a "wikipedia intellectual" (the cultural version of the "internet warrior"). For that matter, feigning outrage at the barbaric elements of cultures that lived THOUSAND of years ago (those are thousands of years where our culture and value system has evolved) doesn't make one appear noble and sensitive, rather it makes one appear like a closed minded ignoramus that doesn't "get out too often" (interpret as "reading books"). In other words, it doesn't make one look any "cooler" -now, you don't see college professors reading Homer and going "What hero, this Achilled was a douchebag", right?-.
(-29)
