Pan-Mongolism

As previously mentioned, the pan-Mongolist vision of the Mongol [37] nation includes all ethnic Mongols regardless of their site of residence or state of citizenship though Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, Buryatia and Kalmykia are the main entities pan-Mongolism concerns itself with. Currently, pan-Mongolism is mainly expressed through cultural and economic cooperation among the various Mongol groups. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, one frequently heard people (Khalkh or non-Khalkh alike) discussing a possibility of Mongolia uniting with Inner Mongolia and less frequently, Buryatia and Kalmykia. Though these voices still arise occasionally in informal conversations, there is no organization or person of public visibility in independent Mongolia that consistently promotes pan-Mongolism as a matter of policy. Expressions of pan-Mongolism are, therefore, sporadic and dispersed and can only be traced through such events as the Mongolian Youth Federation’s participation in the Felt-Tent Dwellers’ Festival (Esgii Gertnii Naadam or Mongol Tuuragtny Naadam), the development of official bi-lateral relations with Buryatia and Kalmykia, business partnerships between Mongolian citizens and ethnic Mongols from other countries (Inner Mongolians, Buryads, Kalmyks, as well as American Mongols), participation of Mongolian scholars in international conferences on Mongol Studies, etc.

Pan-Mongolism is explicitly based on the legacy of Chinghis Khaan and the thirteenth-century Mongol Empire and, of course, nomadic culture. Thus, national pride is derived from past military conquests, unique heritage of the warrior who established the largest land empire in the world, and unique nomadic culture. In addition, pan-Mongolism suggests an alluring possibility of drastically increasing both the territory and population size of independent Mongolia by adding the lands and populations of Buryads, Kalmyks, and Inner Mongolians. Increase of the territory would signify a partial remedy for the nostalgia about having had an empire that stretched from Poland and Anatolia to China and now only controlling 1.5 million sq. km. The increase of the population would alleviate Mongolia’s chronic concern about its small population of 2.4 million people that is supposedly not enough to develop the economy or to defend the country from foreign (euphemism for Chinese) invasion.

Pan-Mongolist stance, however, is not at all strong among Mongolians in independent Mongolia for several reasons. First, it is severely constrained by Mongolian conservative/xenophobic nationalism that is unwilling to share with other ethnic Mongols, particularly those living outside of Mongolia, the unique heritage of Chingghis Khaan and the international popularity associated with that heritage and still existing nomadic lifestyle. Second, it is also constrained by the civic-oriented nationalism, which is determined to maintain good-neighborly relations with Russia and China, particularly the latter, in order to maintain the security of Mongolia’s borders and to avoid risks to Mongolia’s nascent democracy and relative economic stability. Thus, the civic-oriented nationalism firmly stands by (or hides behind) its definition of Mongolian nation based on individuals’ citizenship status and refuses to aid Inner Mongolians seeking political asylum in Mongolia. As a result, pan-Mongolism is strongest outside of Mongolia among Inner Mongolians and diasporic Mongols (Buryads and Kalmyks are not as ‘Mongolia-ward-looking as the former two). A case in point is the Mongolian American Cultural Association based in New Jersey that publishes a regular newsletter on Mongolia (mainly), Inner Mongolia, Buryatia and Kalmykia, and organizes various cultural events (Naadams, concerts, and Chingghis Khaan Symposium).

Apart from propagating cultural and potentially (very vaguely) political cooperation and exchange among ethnic Mongols inside and outside of Mongolia, pan-Mongolism does not have a coherent program pertinent to independent Mongolia’s social and economic life – not surprising given the main proponents of pan-Mongolism are not Mongolian citizens. In the absence of such a program, it is difficult to assess the impact of pan-Mongolism on Mongolian women. Nevertheless, several preliminary observations can be stated. Thus, pan-Mongolism is explicitly past-oriented in that its imagined community is based on the thirteenth century Mongolia and the associated military culture that glorifies masculinity, the nomadic lifestyle characterized by patriarchal rule and sexual division of labor – all of which is epitomized by the strong masculine, patriarchal, and authoritarian figure of Chingghis Khaan, the core identity-giver. Based on an image of a community that precedes modernity, pan-Mongolism is unable to come to terms with the 20th-century social transformations of the traditional nomads through industrialization, urbanization, and socialist acculturation that included the improvement of women’s status.

I believe it is reasonable to suggest that the past-oriented nature of pan-Mongolism and its invocation of the myth of Chingghis Khaan makes pan-Mongolism likely to be women-unfriendly. Thus, it is not surprising that the Chingghis Khaan ceremonies organized annually by MACA in New Jersey, are conducted solely by men. These ceremonies invoke and reinforce the patriarchal patrilineal traditions by positing a direct relationship between men and their culture and national identity manifested by the figure of Chingghis Khaan; men are constructed as direct descendants of Chingghis Khaan and, therefore, legitimate heirs, guardians, and representatives of his legacy, and, by extension, Mongol national identity and culture. Women are, on the other hand, relegated to the role of a spectator. They may appear as entertainers (singing or dancing) during dinner or banquet time or remain invisible at all times as cooks and assistants.

On many of these accounts, pan-Mongolism is very similar to conservative/xenophobic nationalism. However, pan-Mongolism is less hostile to women as its national identity is not based on a narrow biological definition. Comprised of people who live as minorities in other nations and many of whom have intermarried with non-Mongols or view such intermarriage as a real possibility for their young generations, holding onto biologized notions of a national identity is a near impossibility. Hence, pan-Mongolism is more likely to be more open to ‘outsiders’ or ‘hybrids’ and, therefore, is more likely to be less oppressive than conservative/xenophobic nationalism in relation to women.

Oh f-ck off - FOREIGNERS again, look at all the past FEMALE rulers we had and GREAT ones. fu-king idiots

I,m just beginign to read it now lol

Proof-read your articles b4 you post them! ffs lol

I have this LENIN's readin method . Reading by Area