Answer and Explanation:
As Genghis Khan is a very old figure it is normal for there to be different interpretations about him and the activities he established in the Asian environment.
Due to the influence and power of the Mongol empire at the time when he ruled, it can be concluded that he was a successful leader and very clever in the political and administrative organization of his territory, however, there are many contradictions about the character of Genghis Khan.
Many historians believe that he was a cruel, bloodthirsty warrior and that he showed no pity for his opponents, whatever the circumstances. These historians believe that he was unrelenting and acted considering only the territorial extension and the accumulation of wealth for his kingdom. Other historians reinforce that Khan, despite being a formidable warrior, was a strong diplomat, sparing his opponents from his violence when there were reasons to do so.
In the figure below you can see a Venn diagram of the differences in interpretations of Genghis Khan.
If a citizen participates in civics in can effect the government ways one way would be that it could effect the way people think about the leader
<span>to teach American Indians about white society in hopes that they would go home and teach their elders</span>
In my opinion no, we have no business over there. Our foreign policy should be defense only. We shouldn’t send our soldier’s to die over there and resources to be wasted in a place we don’t belong.