From: poser@vxdsyc.desy.de (Till Poser  -  ZEUS OFFLINE)
Subject: Re: Blame that Asian!
Reply-To: Poser@vxdsyc.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:41:40 GMT

In article <Bvw4y3.Lo3@acsu.buffalo.edu>, 
dtwei@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danielle T Wei) writes in soc.culture.usa:

Hoo ha! A chance to pontificate!

|>Isn't it amazing how many times in history Europeans have insulted each
|>other by calling them Asian names?? For instance, the Germans were often
|>referred to as "HUNS" by the British, and the Russians as "MONGOL half-wits."
|>While it is obvious that both "Asian names" were meant as insults, it should
|>also be noted that the real Huns/Mongols originated around Mongolia and
|>northern China (Inner Mongolia) and that they have little blood-ties, if any,
|>with the natives of Germany and Russia

That doesn't matter a whit. The quaint appellation huns for the Germans was
earned entirely by sheer native (German) stupidity. It so happened that during
the revolt of the Yi-he quan (Boxer-Revolt) in 1899-1900 the German envoy
Klemens von Ketteler was murdered by the Boxers on 19.06.00. The embassy 
compound of all the westerners was partially seized and the rest besieged 
between that date and middle of August. A international expedition corps,
with the US, Britain, Germany and others participating, was sent to China and
occupied Peking on the 16.08.00. The German component was given a royal 
send-off and had to suffer a speech by Kaiser Wilhelm II, in which he uttered,
paraphrased, the following lines: "At the end of the Roman Empire, the word
Hun struck fear in all those who heard it. You will now go out and make sure
that the word German will be feared in these times as the word Hun was feared
in those times [(roughly) amongst those uncivilised peoples]". During that 
time, in the post-Bismarck era, the relations between Britain and Germany
had already deteriorated, so the English press glommed on to the word Hun like
a leech onto a vein (And to be entirely truthful, the Germans seem to have 
done as their Kaiser bid, though somewhat belated. Rest assured that for the
next couple of hundred years German will stand on par with Mongol, if that is
any consolation to You).

And actually, in another vein, at least two early Germanic sagas, one in the
later Edda, the Nibelungenlied, and the tales of Dietrich of Berne (probably
Theoderich the Great) do feature the Huns prominently and, most interestingly,
not alltogether as bad guys. Indeed, Kriemhild, the Queen of the Nibelungs
and the widow of Siegfried married Etzel (Attila). Since the Huns were only
stopped on the Catalaunian Fields, they went through all of Germany and most 
Gaul, with all that entails. Are You really prepared to argue against 
bloodties, of the most cursory sort, of course?

As for the Russians, for about 150 years, the Khaganate of Kiew and the 
Khaganate of Vladimir(?) hemmed in the expansion of the Rus, which had
transported itself to Moscow. Both of these Kaganates created from the
Khaganate of the White Horde (Ordu) from Ogutai's time. I think it was
Boris Godunov, as the first real Czar, who destroyed both and layed the
foundation of the Russian Empire. For instance the Krim and Caucasus Tartars
are supposed to derive directly from resettled Huns.

|>Onto my next point; even if the Germans and Russians did have contacts with
|>the Huns/Mongols, why should that be an insult? Is it a disgrace to come into
|>contact with two of the most successful conquerers of the ancient world?
|>Why should the Huns/Mongols be viewed as barbarians while it is obvious
|>that their battle strategies were much superior to that of their opponents'?

The Hun-thing I've already explained, this is relatively modern. About the 
Mongols, I think You don't realise how much the Mongols were feared, hated
and abonimated. The word Mongol is still today a word to conjure evil with 
of the most horrible kind . Subutai and Timur-Lenk (Tamerlane, he of the city 
walls into which thousands of people were imured alive, he of the pyramids of
skulls) have seen to it (the fall of Vladimir, the sack of the Ionian Greek 
cities, the Awarians and Polovzer were nearly completely wipe out, the battle 
of Mohi-heath, or rather its aftermath). The fairly able reigns of 
Dshingis-Khan and Kublai-Khan have been obscured by the utterly unconscionable 
brutality of some of the Mongol leaders (and their following, of course).

Your prototypical "Mongol" is a slavering barbarian, who likes nothing so much
as to disembowel women and beat children to death. This aura of brutality was
transported to the Russians, of course, by way of propaganda. 

|>Not very pleased,
|>NW

Well, what do You propose to do about it? The reputation for brutality was
well earned, well deserved and sometimes well cultivated. So is the reputation
of the Vandals and Visigoths, two Germanic tribes which did their fair share
of butchering and, specifically, destroying the remnants of the West Roman 
empire, to a point where vandal and visigoth are fairly common derogatory 
bywords. Both tribes, however, founded highly civilised reigns, the Vandals 
in Tunisia and Algeria and the Goths in Italy and Spain. Both names are 
similarly besmirched. Should I complain? What about the Vikings and Normans? 

You see, there are other "bad names" which do not hale from Asia, so don't
feel too much put upon, ok?

       Till Poser         Internet: poser@vxdsyc.desy.de
-F35- ZEUS DESY/Freiburg  Bitnet:   POSER@DESYVAX
bldg.1b-235, Notkestr.85  Hepnet:   VXDESY::POSER (13313::Poser)
   D-2000 Hamburg 52      Tel.: -49-40-8998-2004