Are we allowed to talk about the Washington Redskins name change?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by steve B

Ghengis Khan was in many ways - especially for his time - a benevolent ruler.
The immediate conquering was very harsh, but once a city was part of the Mongol empire they were allowed to keep their religion, usually local form of government (Not the original rules, they were usually the first to go)
Crafts people were held on esteem, as well as the literate.
Contemporary accounts of traveling to China from Europe say the mongo empire was very peaceful. While the journey across Europe was perilous due to bandits and "difficult" feudal lords, the travel from eastern Europe all the way to China was entirely uneventful.

Sometimes I picture Ghengis and Cobb sitting down griping about what a raw deal they got from history.

Slaves on plantations tended to be peaceful too. What choice was there?

If some of these conquered people stepped out of line......... I wonder how "benevolent" Ghengis Khan would've been then.

I've never heard Khan, one of the worst butchers of innocents who ever lived, defended so eloquently. I guess I focus on the The immediate conquering was very harsh part, and the realization that living under such a ruler was only "peaceful" as long as one accepted the fact he was now a conquered slave.

Cobb got a raw deal from history. Ghengis Khan was one of its worst mass murderers. That his conquered saw resistance as futile doesn't mean they were happy or content.