Nabla: "It is rare that turn on television. During hospitalization from influenza have fallen into the temptation to look for a few hours, time that was enough to make me shudder ".
Marco: "Come in May? You do not like the new tissue?".
Nabla: «No, anything. It was a documentary ".
Marco: "so? What have you seen so horrible?".
Nabla: "A pleasure-loving TV presenter towered on a carpet of corpses, telling history an executioner, compared to which Attila seems innocent child. The terrible monster Gengis Khan. His empire, in the period of maximum extension, It was the largest of all time: He went from the confines of Asia to Eastern Europe. The time extension did not have the same magnitude of that space: the Mongol Empire only it lasted for a short period of time (from 1206 to the 1368) and it disintegrated because of disputes among the successors of Gran Khan.

My fear was not caused by the presenter ( I always appreciated his television programs, It is one of the few who can do interesting programs for a wide audience) or the accurate historical reconstruction, but from the way it was described the perpetrator in question: It was described as "myth" *.
The thing that troubled me was that this "ideal atmospheric drag that" not content to conquer, but he had pleasure in destroying. His army had no pity for anyone, only an insatiable thirst for blood. A military campaign in the rich and advanced Beijing, which already it had been invented a rudimentary yet elegant seismograph, able to determine in an approximate way the epicenter of an earthquake, He transformed the city into "a pile of bones", as it has been said in the documentary. In fifty years of Mongol domination, China's population has grown from one hundred million to sixty million. practically, the "mythʱ??, after conquering the territories of other populations, He is killing men and children and raped women! Era un uomo bloodthirsty, which did not give any contribution to humanity, if not about the military tactics; for some, a quanto pare, * is a myth ".
Marco: "But the story should be interpreted historically. Undoubtedly, the civilization of Europe at that time were not very evolved on the ethical '.
Nabla: "you are right, but I remind you that already many centuries before the land had been plowed by the likes Buddha is Socrates. Moreover, Europe lived a certain San Francisco in the same period in which Gengis Khan he devoted himself with dedication to the art of cruelty ".
Marco: "In each case the historian should not make moral judgments, but only describe ".
Nabla: "Sure, the ma word "Myth" is ethically neutral? not at all, from a value positive work of the legendary. In short, this seems like a myth of male!".
Marco: "Maybe, in the documentary it was not the view of the authors, but it was stressed that the people Mongolian has the mito in Gengis Khan".
Nabla: "Yup, then it is even more worrying. At this point I would not want that in a thousand years was born a new German myth: un certo Adolf Hitler, great leader and uomo political, in the first half of the twentieth century, He managed to conquer most of Europe in a few years'.
Marco: "The problem is that people have to always find something to venerate. In many circumstances, not imported the object of reverence is a bloodthirsty: It is what he has achieved for having made it big. Unfortunately, forget the price that others have paid to the myth took shape ».

Nabla: "They are really the" myths "that make the history or we are victims of archetypes?".
Marco: "I think we are victims of archetypes. In truth, they are the real protagonists; represent only an idea somehow comforting that, are this, provoke horror, but, as past and buried, becomes harmless, far, ideal and, therefore, admirable ".
Nabla: "In fact I have often marveled at how the history that you study in school it is written only by battles, war, dead e distruzioni, whose main characters are only the regents, heroes war and the rich. The rest is a boundary that serves to powerful per live their privilege. Instead, about history It is made of common people, by common people. Coarsening tends to make us put emphasis on the events most sensational. A little 'what happens when we look at the news: are the exceptional and cruelty that make the news. The problem is that we risk forgetting everything else. If this is what we know to transmit, we should not complain when teenagers are left to win by the charm of violence. The ancients, sia in Oriente che in West, had discovered how the development of certain thoughts direct influence on the behavior and actions. In tal modo, we help young people to develop "thoughts violent "and, Consequently, violent acts. Not that you have to tappargli eyes, mind you, but we should not erect statues in honor of villains like Gengis Khan. Paradoxically, in the ideal state of Plato It falls into the opposite, namely to censor works that reveal the dark parts of the human soul, only to show examples of virtue sublime and divine. Obviously the two extremes do not represent what is the real human nature. anyway, as in the writings of Philosophy Idealists are enhanced only lights, in the dominant culture, we tend too often to emphasize the worst aspects of 'be human. In short, instead of seeking harmony between the elements and the bright dark, you always have the tendency to show the darker aspects. Watching television today (and Theatre tragic yesterday) we can not deny this fact.

For posterity will judge? last edit: Tuesday,13 February 10:06, 2007 the nabladue
Share!










Submit
More share buttons
Share on Pinterest
There are no images.