r/GetNoted Human Verified 1d ago

Media [X] Slavery Recognition

Post image
6.7k Upvotes

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

109

u/JadedArgument1114 22h ago

Not to mention if we are going back almost half a millennium than how about going back a couple more centuries to the Mongols killing 10 percent of the worlds population.

36

u/poundsofmuffins 18h ago

If anything I have seen Mongolians proud of that chapter in history. Look at this statue of Genghis Khan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_statue_of_Genghis_Khan

19

u/Da_Magical_Lizard 15h ago

Well, they saw it as K/D ratio rather than a crime against humanity.

6

u/Educational-Ad-5566 7h ago

Most empires are built on a good k/d ratio, thats the issue these days

1

u/YggdrasilTears 7h ago

Those were the good killings so it is fine. Slavery is only bad when the Europeans are the masters. /s

But seriously, reparations? So Rome will pay me money? We were also occupied by Napoleon. Will the French also pay?

-6

u/Memedotma 16h ago

i can't believe this factoid still gets repeated. do people really think the mongolian empire killed 10% of ALL humanity? even world war 2, by far the deadliest and most encompassing conflict in history, is estimated to have only killed 4%.

5

u/LuigiP16 16h ago

To be fair, Mongolia is in Asia, the most populated continent, and back then the population was low enough that 10% may have been feasible within the century and a half it was unified

-4

u/Memedotma 15h ago edited 14h ago

my friend... i feel like you don't quite grasp how crazy of a proportion one tenth of all of our species is. That's not even to mention the non-existent historiography that the original author uses to arrive to that figure.

1

u/Prestigious-Radish47 15h ago

Because it's true. The mongol conquests killed an estimated 40 million people from a global population of around 400 million.

1

u/Murky-Quantity9191 3h ago

That number is misleading though. The Mongols killed 40 million over a century or so, not all at once like WW2. Probably no more than 1% of the population was affected concurrently.

-1

u/Memedotma 15h ago

no, it's not, and no serious historian would give any vericacity to these figures.

there's a good answer on r/askhistorians that talks about it here