being stubborn == good entrepreneur?

[netmouse]

On Wednesday flinx and I went and saw Mongol, which they describe in the trailer as "the untold story of Genghis Khan's rise to power" and which could be subtitled "How to Choose a Good Wife." It was a good movie, full of amazing vistas, with a lead character who could have been the poster boy for entrepreneurialism.

That is to say, before he was Khan, he was the son of a dead Khan, and thus a threat. He ran away, and was caught. And ran away, and was caught. And ran away, came back to get his wife (first battle we see him winning), later got into a different battle, and was caught. And was sold as a slave, and was imprisoned. And got away (enter the importance of choosing a good wife), and eventually won battles and united his people under the rule of law. Throughout which, he was amazingly stubborn and stoic.

In Before you Quit Your Job, Robert Kiyosaki quotes someone as saying, "Losers quit when they fail. Winners fail until they succeed."

Is it bad to choose the head of the Mongol Horde as a role model?

Comments

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

What Genghis Khan did wasn't "entrepreneurialism". Business and war aren't the same thing. Entrepreneurialism involves identifying something people want, figuring out how to get it to them, and doing it. Economics is about voluntary exchanges between free individuals for their mutual benefit. Genghis Khan was a military leader; he relied on coercion, loyalty through fear, and literal destruction of not just his enemies but also civilian populations in enemy territory. Is it morally wrong to adopt the principles of violence, coercion, and revenge that were hallmarks of Genghis Khan's success? I would say yes. Do some business leaders use these tactics? Yes, but it's not admirable.

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

Well, that wasn't the story in the movie. In the movie he gave his warriors equal shares of plunder, attracted them with his generosity, defended his men's right to choose their own master, and later re-instated the law that mongols do not kill children. He wasn't afraid to ask for help, and he remembered his debts, but did not let them dominate him; he remained a free agent.

Plus, as I said, he was stubborn and dedicated, placing his goals above his personal life except where it really mattered.

So whether these traits that I've described belonged to Genghis Khan or not, the character in the movie may serve as a useful model.

(btw, what is your source for all this info about what the Kahn did and didn't do? sometimes it sounds like you know the subject matter and sometimes like you're generalizing.)

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

Studied history, once upon a time. Did a few minutes research with Google. Summarized.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of historical record, but there are stories across Russia and southwest Asia about whole towns being destroyed with every man, woman, and child killed, and then land salted to prevent anyone from coming back and rebuilding. In one case it is said he redirected a river through his enemy's capital city so that it would not be found on maps. In modern-day Mongolia he is remembered positively, just as many Hungarians and Turks are given the name Attila.

The Green Berets and Apocalypse Now describe the same conflict in very different terms, and that's within living memory. I'm not inclined to trust a single, fictional, source, especially when it conflicts with other sources.