The author explained how the Mongols were incorrectly perceived in history. Much of the crimes blamed on Genghis Khan were actually committed by Timur, a Turkic warrior who claimed to be descended from Genghis Khan. Timur ruthlessly slaughtered the people of his conquered cities, and enjoyed torturing and humiliating his prisoners. European historians tied Timur’s actions to Genghis Khan. Myths grew around him, nurtured by Anti-Asian spirit during the Enlightenment . An Enlightenment scientist, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach trying to support his own racist views classified “Mongoloids” as separate inferior race from the more advanced Europeans. In later years, people with developmental disabilities were classified as as Mongoloids, the explanation for …show more content…
I was surprised to learn about their ending of birth based privilege, and his outlawing kidnapping women from other tribes. Perhaps the most surprising was to learn about their love of education and how they effectively utilized a wide range of skilled people and scholars to benefit their empire.I was disappointed to learn about how his sons were not able to live up to Genghis Khan 's legacy, unlike his daughters. As with any book, the reader must look closely for potential bias. The author of Genghis Khan and the Making of The Modern World, Jack Weatherford is not an actual historian, instead an anthropologist. He received awards such as the Order of the Polar Star, a Mongolian award, and is held in high esteem by the Mongolian government. As Jack Weatherford, the author, is a non Mongolian he interpreted the historical documents through a western viewpoint and may have misunderstood some Mongolian cultural specificity. I also feel the author overstates the influence the Mongols had on Europe. The evidence he provides for their influence on the renaissance seems