Review of 'Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world' on 'Goodreads'
5 stars
NGCSU assitant professor of history Timothy May's review of Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World makes it clear that May has made two assumptions: that Weatherford sought to (i) write a book on history, and (ii) that he intended it for Western readers. Many of Weatherford's actual readers may share May's assumptions, but they shouldn't. It seems clear to me that Weatherford has written a work of anthropology and his intended readers---to whom he dedicated the work---are modern Mongolians.
(For example, David Morgan's [b:The Mongols|679547|The Mongols|David Morgan|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1177086326s/679547.jpg|665949] is a book of history for the Western reader. In it, Morgan excused his ignorance of the Mongolian language by explaining that it's too much to ask a historian to learn such a difficult language when almost everything he needs to study the Mongols is written in the much more commonly-known (by Western historians) tongues of Persian and Chinese. …
NGCSU assitant professor of history Timothy May's review of Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World makes it clear that May has made two assumptions: that Weatherford sought to (i) write a book on history, and (ii) that he intended it for Western readers. Many of Weatherford's actual readers may share May's assumptions, but they shouldn't. It seems clear to me that Weatherford has written a work of anthropology and his intended readers---to whom he dedicated the work---are modern Mongolians.
(For example, David Morgan's [b:The Mongols|679547|The Mongols|David Morgan|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1177086326s/679547.jpg|665949] is a book of history for the Western reader. In it, Morgan excused his ignorance of the Mongolian language by explaining that it's too much to ask a historian to learn such a difficult language when almost everything he needs to study the Mongols is written in the much more commonly-known (by Western historians) tongues of Persian and Chinese. I am unimpressed with such arguments.)
Weatherford in contrast spent many years crisscrossing the Mongolian landscape with nomads, seeking an understanding of the Secret History. This suppressed work contained the Mongol side of the story, and Mongolians today find themselves in the surprising and happy situation of having a foreigner as an interpreter and champion, one who praises their ancestors' achievements, understates their evils, shows them to be the ancestors of today's world culture---and tells today’s Mongolians their story (or perhaps I should say "retells"). These readers can tolerate some fuzziness at the edges of the story (translations of the Persian/Urdu word hazara or the modern history of Baghdad or the pre-Mongol capacity of the Silk Road).
This melange of anthropology, history, and cultural geography is writing at its best, connecting worlds that we've walled off due to ignorance or chance or unreason.
