You’ve know, don’t you? It’s Polo, but what, considering the lean and judgmental approach to Western history, do we know? The tale of MP is about more than getting to China to see the Khan. The account covers considerably more, including glimpses of players seen today. Polo was not a faultless observer, but neither were he and his group an invading army of Western colonizers, activity amply carried on by ethnic and religious groups – some well-known, others less credited. On occasion we see the Mongol Golden Horde in over-played films.

Almost never is mention made of Tartars invading Europe, an Islamic Caliphate pushing into Hungary or the hundreds of invasions into Europe leading up to the infamous Crusades, at the time of Columbus Spain finally ejected its Arab invaders, plus Jews for good measure.

Less than a century before the American Revolution the last Islamic military invasion into Europe aimed at Vienna and was barely defeated. You’ll hardly hear the defenders of Vienna praised same as Middle East Freedom Fighters.  

Back to Marco. But why him, why now? Major issues aside, Polo is of interest as a reporter who stimulated the Western World with his tale of travels. Of note in our judgmentally obsessed time, Marco generally avoided judgments, in part because he had to get along from one group to the next. In that he was akin to the Great Kahn he admired for his overall pragmatic get-along tactic.

Arguably the greatest, largest, long-lasting rulers, the Mongol-Tartar khans put savvy before doctrine. Polo’s account isn’t 100% accurate or correct, but covering many different and difficult cultures it demonstrates that some mutual cooperation existed over wide distances. Whether self-interest, Khan’s enforcement or other reasons, there was cross contact. The Khan used military force, but more for stability than to impose his ways on others, an attribute Polo found acceptable and laudable. Plug in proto-colonialism or Italian supremacy if you must, but I suspect doing so misses the point.  

As said, some of today’s players are mentioned by Polo, especially recognizable religions. These do make a difference in Polo’s travels, the Khan advancing none of them while in ways favoring each as needed. So, what label do we give the Khan? Mongol colonizer, imperial lord, empire builder or overlord supremacist?

I ask as a way to shake the tunnel vision that surrounds us with narrowly selective views. The Tartar, Mongol, Khan Empire lasted half a millennia and covered more peoples and territory than any other. Looking back so far in time it’s hard to be definite, even with Polo’s account as a guide, about the Khan’s rein. The Khan’s was absolute authority; non-western supremacy? What to call it? Was the Khanate pre-Mao, Nazism, Fascist, terrible Trumpism or Benevolent Biden?

Trouble is there’s little but our own good but flawed sense to guide because, sadly, a good many authorities simply make things up or get them wrong.   Take the splendid boogey of Fascism. Hold up an image of your favored demon and call it Fascist. Forceful but wrong. Online sources are no better. They deem Fascism as nationalistic and militaristic. That definition fails unless you want to include the nationalist, militarized Palestinians who are more theocratic than fascist.

To be accepted much info has to go with the flow, in this case meaning the definite connection between Fascism and Italian Socialism is tactfully omitted. Why? Because it is damned difficult to understand. G, Gentile gave voice to “actualism” which got blended into Italian Socialism in the form of Socialist Government cooperating with business to create non-risk business ventures. Mr. bad-guy Mussolini was a big proponent of state supported education and health insurance. The Italian middle class did OK before it had to pay the price for marrying government to business.  

Fascism (look for it anywhere oligarchs are found) is quite alive and well, but not in images of demonized individuals. You’ll find fascism doing business in, as example, Russia and the Ukraine but in truth anywhere there’s a cozy connect between business and the state. If you make vaccines you’ll applaud a vaccine mandate or if you give student loans you’ll support government guarantees. As I said, fascism is a policy and a practice rather than an unappealing personality.

Making this harder for us to sort out is the routine way Nazism and Fascism are termed as far right when they were both socialist. Nazism and Fascism are right of pure-communism, all three being leftist. Any of the three can be termed (and are often called for palatability) a democracy, mostly I think for show. They aren’t monarchies, plutocracies or theocracies. The three are all decidedly on the left. They aren’t, as is the US, republics, another form of government miserably tricky to pin down. In theory the US is (or was) a sort of centrist republic avoiding favoritism to promote freedom-liberty. With freedom as its central cause the US started off with a tough task, one made more challenging when the French added Equality and Fraternity to the mission. Citizenship in a republic such as ours is more complex and important than gripping about personalities, a sorry habit that distracts from other issues.  

But, back to Polo and the Khans. For longer than the US has been around, the Tartar Empire balanced the same forces seen today. Through power they kept Christian sects, Muslim-Saracens and pagan idolaters from mutual destruction. Some doctrines, it seems, are a bit more prone to aggression. Christians were prone to advance through proselytizing. Pagans could justify near anything depending on the god of choice. Muslims believed in having the final answer. Keeping these apart was a workable course.

But consider in today’s context that for more than a millennia the faithful of one belief were reminded five times daily when called to prayer that their deity specifically cursed one group and scorned another. Five times a day Jews were cursed and Christians reviled. But be of great heart because it doesn’t end there. All non-believers are included, pagan and atheist and agnostic alike.