What I learned from Marco Polo (the Book)

From 1271 to 1295, Marco Polo, his father and his uncle traveled from Venice to Mongolia (and around Asia) and back.  This was a dangerous trip.   The really amazing thing is that the father and uncle did it twice.  That they did that is now well known because Marco's tale is the one that was written down and has since been substantiated by examination of historical Chinese writings.  There are many little takeaways from this book, but I will highlight the ones that are relevant to thinking about our society today.

In no particular order:

Travel can be dangerous.  The silk road was not an easy road.  There were bandits, disease, lack of water in places, and high peaks to cross in Afghanistan.  They could have disappeared on this travel and never been heard of again.

Power requires the support of the community and the leader must support the community.  The Polo's travels were during the reign of Kublai Khan.  He was the grandson of Ghenkis Khan.  The empire stretched from S.E. Asia (loose control) and the boundaries of China (tighter control) to the western steppes of Russia.  The Khan allowed Religious Freedom and basically believed all religions were appropriate.  They of course were brutal on their enemies, but rewarded their supporters with gems, money and food.  They acknowledged and co-opted local leaders.  They fed the poor and believed in state charity.  Marco wrote "Kublai Khan would provide sufficient grain for an entire year when there was famine."  The people worshiped Khan as a God as their lives depended on him.

Perhaps this is what Putin is trying to become.

But this was not a democracy.   A perceived betrayal of the leader would result in a horrendous death.  Methods described included four horses, with a rope tied to a different limb of a man, walking away from the center in 90 degree angles.  Or stuffing a man's mouth with human excrement and then tying his mouth shut.  Polygamy seemed to be the right of every ruler and women had no rights except to serve their man.  They were respected if they lived by the rules.

Denial of the truthfulness of the Polo's tale was rampant when they returned.  Initially, their identity was in doubt as they reclaimed their homes after 24 years absence.  But their wealth of gems (protected from bandits by being discreetly tied within their clothes) bought them acceptance.  (And it remains true today that money beings accolades and a voice that is heard, poverty does not get a voice).  As Marco described Asian inventions, the stories were greeted with disbelief and only accepted over time (what will likely happen with global warming).

The things that Marco introduced the use of to Western Europe were critical for the Renaissance, which, without them, probably would have been delayed.  He brought back:  paper money, how to use coal as  fuel, how to make glass and eyeglasses, which led to telescopes and the revelation that the earth revolved around the sun and might not be flat.  There were 200 years between Marco and Galileo, so technology certainly evolves faster today.  Polo brought back gun powder.  The Polo's were the first step on the path of globalization.

Many of the great places then are archaeological digs today.  How does a great city disappear?  Well, change in the availability of water creates stress that cannot be overcome.  Lack of a political power to protect creates stress that cannot be overcome.  Disease and lack of food similarly.

My takeaway in terms of the current Republican message is that they either have a messaging problem or they are trying to overturn history.  The Khan's respected the poor as people because they needed that political support even when they were not a democracy.   They needed the poors' sons for soldiers and not as soldiers for their enemies.  Can a political party succeed in the long term if they do not deal with all citizens fairly?  I doubt it.

That is my assessment of the Republican party today.  I am not sure they believe all citizens should be dealt with in a fair manner.  I think all they care about is protecting the rights and financial well being of those with money.  They represent the people who reaccepted the Polo's only when they showed they were wealthy.  Of course, Venice was corrupt as could be and met it's demise militarily because it could not raise a sufficient military to ward off its enemies.  The poor did not see the other side as the enemy and avoided military service.  Whereas they were keen to support the Khan's though multiple generations.

The current U.S. Supreme Court does not see the corrupting influences of money.  Some of the "conservative" justices are not the students of history they state they are and they are certainly as "activist" as their supporters accuse the Warren Court of being.  I guess activism is in the eye of the beholder.