4
   

Does using the word "vilify" indicate the author's attitude of confirming Genghis Khan?

 
 
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2014 07:54 am



Context:

Beyond his military accomplishments, Genghis Khan also advanced the Mongol Empire in other ways. He decreed the adoption of the Uyghur script as the Mongol Empire's writing system. He also practiced meritocracy and encouraged religious tolerance in the Mongol Empire while unifying the nomadic tribes of northeast Asia. Present-day Mongolians regard him as the founding father of Mongolia.[10]

Vilified throughout most of history for the brutality of his campaigns, Genghis Khan is also credited with bringing the Silk Road under one cohesive political environment. This increased communication and trade from Northeast Asia to Muslim Southwest Asia and Christian Europe, thus expanding the horizons of all three cultural areas.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 4 • Views: 436 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
View best answer, chosen by oristarA
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2014 08:32 am
@oristarA,
No, he's stating an historical truth. In the West Genghis Khan isn't remembered for anything positive, just as the head of a massive horde that swept west destroying everything in its path.

What sealed his reputation as a mindless brute was the destruction of the Grand Library in Baghdad.
chai2
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2014 10:12 am
@izzythepush,
Genghis Khan was a monkey genius.

His incompetent/drunk sons totally ruined everthing he had built.

Khan was acting in the context of his culture. For his society he was acting appropriately.

No one remembers that all the lands he conquered lived the way they wanted, and keep their cultural ways. They just had to pay tribute to Khan, and return got his protection from other invaders.
0 Replies
 
contrex
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2014 11:19 am
To vilify means to abusively criticise and disparage, and when A says that B has been 'vilified', it may well mean that A thinks that B has been unfairly and/or excessively criticised..
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2014 11:41 am
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

To vilify means to abusively criticise and disparage, and when A says that B has been 'vilified', it may well mean that A thinks that B has been unfairly and/or excessively criticised..



That's it. Izzy didn't get it quite right.
The author has misused the word. Genghis Khan is **** for his bloody masscres brought to innocent people. He should be stormed.
chai2
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2014 12:36 pm
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:

Genghis Khan is **** for his bloody masscres brought to innocent people. He should be stormed.



Well, how would you do that? He's been dead almost 800 years.

Anyway, if he was stormed, who do you think would win?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Is this comma splice? Is it proper? - Question by DaveCoop
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
Is the second "playing needed? - Question by tanguatlay
should i put "that" here ? - Question by Chen Ta
Unbeknownst to me - Question by kuben123
alternative way - Question by Nousher Ahmed
Could check my grammar mistakes please? - Question by LonelyGamer
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does using the word "vilify" indicate the author's attitude of confirming Genghis Khan?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/01/2024 at 06:19:55