FEATURE ARTICLE: GENGHIS KHAN AND MOVIES IN EURASIA

Several movies on Genghis Khan and related themes have recently appeared in Eurasian countries. Each of them, and especially the response to them by the general public, indicates geopolitical shifts in Eurasia, as well as the desire of the ethnic Russian elite to play a leading role in the Russian Federation and, possibly, in the entire post-Soviet space. At the same time, this turn to Genghis Khan by some intellectuals from Russia’s ethnic minorities indicates persistent ethnic tension in Russia.

BACKGROUND: One could assume that the growing interest in Genghis Khan could just be attributed to the 800th anniversary of the rise of his enormous empire. This could be explained in the case of Mongolia, where the anniversary in 2006 was celebrated with great pomp to affirm Mongolian post-Communist nationalism, and where one of the movies of Genghis Khan was created. Still, the appearance of the movies on Genghis Khan in Eurasian countries cannot be explained by the fact of the anniversary alone. It has much deeper roots. In fact, the rise of interest in this or that historical figure is related to geopolitical trends, assertion of power, and the centrality of this or that civilization. The movies on Alexander the Great reflect the USA’s desire to ensure its domination of the Middle East, its geopolitical centrality in general, which quite a few Americans relate with the domination of the West in general. At the same time, the movie 300 focused not on the triumph of the Greek-Macedonian armies, but on the desperate stand of 300 Spartans against the superior forces of Persians, indicating the perceived weakening of the USA – or, one might state, the West – against the increasing pressure of Asia. And it is this reason why movies about Genghis Khan have become so popular. And while Alexander the Great symbolizes the assertion of the power of the West, so Genghis Khan symbolizes the rise and predominance of the East. The importance of Genghis Khan as the symbol of the victorious East could explain why Genghis Khan has become a beloved figure even for those countries that themselves were devastated by the hordes of Mongolian warriors of the Great Khan and his successors. This, for example, was the case for Japan, which, while one of the leading economic powers of the East, only barely escaped the invasions of Mongolian armies. The same could be said, to a certain degree, about Russia and other Asian countries of the former Soviet Union.

At the same time, the interest in Genghis Khan and the response to movies about him also indicates another important aspect of post-Soviet life in the territory of the former USSR. It indicates that the ethnic Russian elite still regards itself as the leading force in the Federation and, possibly, the entire post-Soviet space, in the context of the traditional “Eurasianist” model. At the same time, the alternative vision of the past and the present among the Russian minorities shows that they challenge such a model.

IMPLICATIONS: Yuri Bagrov, the producer of Mongol, already being viewed by the Russian public, openly proclaimed in interviews that he was inspired by Lev Gumilev. Gumilev, the son of the celebrated Russian poet and critic Nikolai Gumilev and his, perhaps even more famous mother, the poetess Anna Andreevna Gorenko (pseudonym Anna Akhmatova), had a turbulent and tragic life. Not only was his father executed (in 1921) on charges of participating in an anti-Soviet plot, but also his mother, with whom he had a tense relationship, had been harassed by authorities. Gumilev also had spent some time in Stalin’s camp.

Lev Gumilev was known by the general public only during the Gorbachev era, at the very end of his life, becoming a celebrity overnight. With reservations, Gumilev had followed the historical Eurasianists, who emerged in the 1920s among Russian émigrés and who believed that the Russian civilization was a unique blend of Slavic and Turkic/Mongolian people. In Gumilev’s view, the Mongol Conquest was not actually a massive invasion but rather a foray quickly leading to healthy symbiosis. Finally, and this was especially important for Gumilev as well as other Eurasianists, the Mongols had been a people of complete religious tolerance, and, because of this, Russians came to prefer “Orthodox” as their national identity. In fact, if it had not been the Mongols but the “dog knights” who prevailed, Russia would have been completely Latinized; Russia, converted to Roman Catholicism, would have disappeared entirely. Naturally, the Mongols here are seen as a mostly benign force. And in this reading there was actually no Mongol/Tatar yoke.

In the course of time, in this view, the Mongol Empire experienced a sort of decay, and the Mongols finally handed the imperial torch to the Russians. In fact, in the context of this theory, the Russian empire was nothing but an Orthodox-Mongol empire of a sort. Finally, the torch was passed to the USSR. Inspired by this vision of the Mongol empire, the producer of the movie not only made direct reference to Gumilev as an inspirational force, but also made several additional comments in an interview that should explain to his viewers why he chose Genghis Khan, and why the Mongol ruler’s successor empire should be dear to each Russian. He stated that ethnic Russians should understand that Mongol/Tatar blood is in their veins and, implicitly, no pure “Russian blood” exists. Secondly, the movie’s producer made reference to Alexander Nevsky, the Russian prince who defeated the Teutonic knights – the real mortal threat for Russia – at the Battle of Ice (1242) and who became a sort of quasi-brother to the Mongol/Tatar ruler Batu, who conquered Russia. He also reaffirmed the other cardinal premise of Gumilev’s philosophy that without the Mongols, the Russians would have been assimilated by the West, religiously, culturally and ethnically. The Mongolian conquest is seen not so much as conquest but as a sort of symbiosis of brotherly people; and this is in absolute congruence with Gumilev’s vision of the Mongol/Tatar invasion.

Thus, the interest in Genghis Khan – as the producer insisted – is due not just to the dramatic aspect of the events and even the role of Asia in the future (here, he pointed to China’s rise) but also to the fact that the Mongols had laid the foundation of the Russian state as a multi-cultural and multi-confessional state. Finally, there was another hint why Genghis Khan could be of interest and appreciation to present-day Russians. The movie started with the beginning of Genghis Khan, when he and those close to him fell in the abyss of ignonmity. The young Genghis Khan was captured and enslaved, and his beautiful wife was raped. He seemed to be destined to absolute obscurity. Still, he rose literally from the ashes; and by the end of his life and his successors’ lives, the Mongols controlled the biggest land mass empire in human history. The same, as implied by Bagrov, one could see as Russia’s future. From the collapse of the USSR, Russia today is rising to be once again a major force in Eurasia.

And last but not least, in the cold, calculating figure of Genghis Khan, who meticulously and dispassionately built a great future for himself and his people, one could discern the future of none but Vladimir Putin, who, starting his career as an obscure KGB operative in post-Soviet Russia before the collapse of the regime, became a person with almost autocratic power and  sees himself as the builder of the mighty Russia.

This image of Genghis Khan and his Mongol Empire, while pleasing to some in the Russian elite, has not fit well the political designs of others. One such group is the non-Slavic minorities of the Russian Federation. Indeed, Eurasianism in its traditional interpretation approaches the ethnic minorities with due respect and even recognizes that the present-day Russians are not pure Slavs, at least from a racial or ethnic point of view. Still, these political designs imply that it is the Russians to play the role of “elder brothers” in Russia and Eurasia; and it is to them that Genghis Khan and his successors passed the imperial torch. These plans are hardly pleasing to the numerous ethnic minorities in the Russian Federation, each with its own ideological and, consequently, political and socio-economic construction. Some members of the elite believe that ethnic Russians should not just abandon the notion of “elder brothers” but themselves be relegated to the position of “younger brothers.” Some even believe that Russians are pretty much irrelevant to Eurasian space; consequently, they provide their own vision of the past.

A producers in Yakutia, an ethnic Yakut, had offered a new vision of Genghis Khan in his own movie. The movie acknowledges that Russia is the legitimate successor of the empire of Genghis Khan. Still, Russia rather plays a role of “younger brother.” Genghis Kahn’s empire in this interpretation was predominately a Turkic state, and the Turkic people did not pass the torch to Russians. They dominated the Eurasian space in the past and dominate it in the present; and Yakuts, who are presented here as a Turkic people, should belong to the rulers of Eurasia/Russia.

The correspondent from Izvestia who visited Yakutia and interviewed the creator of the movie stated that this vision of the Yakut as the leading force of Russia/Eurasia is not an abstraction: it relates to the rising tide of Yakut nationalism and the abysmal conditions of ethnic Russians in Yakutia. In fact, all good jobs in present-day Yakutia are in the hands of ethnic Yakuts with Russians discriminated against in regard to both jobs and educational opportunities. The article “Genghis Khan, Show Your Face” led to a strong response that accused not only the author of the article but also Izvestia of fomenting ethnic tensions.

Most important in these two conflicting images of Genghis Khan, the builder of, actually, a Russian empire or a state of Turkic/Mongolian people –minorities in today’s Russia – is the response of average citizens of the Russian Federation. And this response indicates deep-seated ethnic, or, to be precise, socio-ethnic tensions in the state. The response to the Yakutia-made movie is especially important from this perspective, for it could easily be traced by the Internet polemics related to the movies.

CONCLUSIONS: This interest in the Mongol empire indicates a global shift to Asia, which looms more and more as an economic and potentially geopolitical center of the globe. In the former USSR, this image of the Mongol empire had an additional dimension: it indicated the conflict of the various parts of the former USSR for the dominant position in the post-Soviet space. In the Russian Federation, the Mongol image is inherent in the conflicts between ethnic Russians and minorities. And the conflict is related to the different constructions of the images of the Mongol Empire. In one, the imperial torch was passed to the Russians. In the other vision, it was passed to Russia’s ethnic minorities – or to no one. Recent ethnic violence in Russia, such as in Kondopoga and Stavropol, illustrate that these different visions of the relationship between ethnic Russians and minorities are not just related to different visions of the past but have potentially serious implications for the fate of the Russian Federation.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Dmitry Shlapentokh is an Associate Professor of history at the University of Indiana, South Bend.