Great-great-great-grandfather Genghis

You know that guy sitting opposite you on the bus this morning? The one with the reddish tinge to his hair, and the hint of oriental heritage in his eyes? And possibly a scimitar hanging from his hip? Well, the chances are relatively high that he is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan.

You may have heard of the Genghis Khan effect. I stumbled upon it the other day, and its one of the coolest historical doobywacks I've encountered in a while. The basic premise is as follows:

In 2003, a group of 23 scientists completed ten years of research in the lands constituting the former Mongol Empire. They analysed the DNA of thousands of men in those regions, studying especially the Y chromosomes, those passed from father to son.

Apparently, the Y-chromosome remains largely unchanged as it makes its genetic way forward through history. Every now and then, a (usually harmless) mutation occurs somewhere along its length, and this mutation, or 'marker', will then pass on from generation to generation.

These Y-markers are useful because, if you find two blokes with the same one, chances are that they are both descended from the same ancestor.

The scientists conducting this research made an amazing discovery: in the former empire of the Great Khan, around 16 million men, or 1 in 12 males, share the same Y-marker, one which is found only in that region. Also, the mutation is about 1000 years old.

The only possible way for a mutation like that to spread to so many people in such a short time, is if the person carrying the original manages to kill off lots of the male competition, and sleep with lots of women, and have lots of sons.

That sounds like our Genghis. He killed hundreds of thousands, he had concubines and harems, and he got first pick of the conquered females.

So the explanation goes like this. Genghis picked up the Y-marker from a recent male relative, maybe his great-grandfather. He and his male siblings spread their line throughout their rapidly-conquered territories. They murdered the guys and raped the ladies. And now Genghis has 16 million direct male descendants.

The rest of us could expect about 20 male heirs by the year 2800. So Genghis has spread his seed at 800,000 times the average rate.

Of course, we can't be sure that the progenitor was Temujin himself, until we find his remains and test his DNA. But the odds on it being him are pretty good. I mean, how many other murderous Mongolian warlords, ruling the whole of Eurasia, were there 8 centuries ago?

And the loser is...

What with all the Obama-Clinton furore in the press recently, I have found myself pondering over the following dilemma: just who has been the worst US President out of the 42 white Protestant men (and one white Catholic man) who have so far held that esteemed office?

Now, in 2008, it is mighty easy to dismiss the incumbent shitwit as the worst of the worst. By any measure, George Dubya is a man of loose morals and of questionable intelligence, who is already well within the 'lame duck' catgeory. There is really nothing he could do in the next six months to lift himself from the doldrums of presidential-effectiveness.

However, Americans don't seem to completely agree with this sentiment. They have voted for him twice (sort of), and the vitriol and anger directed towards him back in 2003-4 seems to have largely been replaced with feelings of pity for his pure bumbling incompetence. Yes, he is pretty crap, but he can't help it. And at least he has stopped invading other people's countries in recent years.

There is much debate about who has been the best US President. In fact, there have been a large number of surveys based on this question, where Americans are asked to rank their past leaders from first to last. Pretty unsurprisingly, the favourites are usually Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Washington. Jefferson, Truman, the other Roosevelt, and Wilson tend to follow. In the last 2 major surveys, (2002 and 2005), George W. has come 23rd and 19th respectively. Bill Clinton managed 18th and 22nd. Bush Snr. was about the same, with 22nd and 21st. So, in recent times, it seems the guys we all remember get lumped in about the middle. Not too bad, but not too great either.

But what about the worst? There was a poll conducted in 2008 of professional historians, of which 98% declared the Bush presidency a failure, with over 60% calling it the worst so far. Now, this was a poll of experts, who might actually know what they're talking about, but it probably doesn't reflect the view of most Americans. And certainly not your average gun-totin' redneck Texan.

On the public surveys, there are a few names which tend to pop up at the bottom of the list. The main three are:

Franklin Pierce (1853-57)
James Buchanan (1857-61)
Warren G Harding (1921-23)

Another two, William Henry Harrison, and James Garfield, usually remain unranked, as they both died after a few months in office, and therefore didn't really get the chance to bugger up the domestic economy, or send the marines into a troublesome Latin American country.

So let's look at our three top contenders.

1) Pierce.

It seems that the main issue with this guy was that he allowed himself to be manipulated by the pro-slavery lobby, allowing the newly-settled western states to introduce slavery if they wished. He has been accused of being a northern President with southern sympathies, of being unable to keep control of domestic or international affairs, and of being indecisive. He is, so far, the only President who failed to win his party's nomination to stand for a second term. And, after his crappy period as President, he became an alcoholic (on losing the nomination, he reportedly said, 'there's nothing left to do but get drunk'), and he once ran over an old woman in his carriage. He died of liver cirrhosis at the age of 64.




2) Buchanan.

Poor old Jimmy Buchanan famously declared that 'history will vindicate my memory'. Well, it seems that it didn't. Buchanan took a similarly weak stance on slavery as his predecessor, Pierce. It was during his presidency that the southern states moved towards secession, and historians blame his inability to deal with this pressing issue as one of the reasons for the Civil War. In fact, by the time he left office, seven slave states had already left the Union, and the first tentative shots of the conflict had been fired.

He also sent the troops in to Utah to hassle the Mormons, and oversaw the Financial Panic of 1857.

Buchanan saw the writing on the wall, and didn't stand for nomination in 1860. In fact, he departed office gladly, telling Lincoln that if he was as happy to enter the White House as Buchanan was to leave it, then Lincoln was indeed a happy man.


3) Harding.

Ah, Warren Gamaliel Harding. Conservative newspaperman, popular Republican President, inventor of the word, 'normalcy' - and historical lame duck. What went wrong?

Well, apparently he appointed a bunch of his cronies into his administration, and they proceeded to rob the nation's coffers. Harding either couldn't or wouldn't do anything about his corrupt chums. "I have no trouble with my enemies," Harding said at one point, "but my damn friends, they're the ones that keep me walking the floor nights!"

He also had a rather clumsy style of speaking, loaded with gaffes, mispronunciations, incorrect words, and cluttered phrases.

Conservative and inept. Cronyism and corruption. Inability to speak publicly. Does any of this sound familiar?


So, in conclusion?

From what I've read about these three blokes, it seems that the first two were incompetents who presided over the disintegration of the Union, while the third was a bit average. To a non-American, who doesn't see the Civil War as the defining moment of tragedy in World History, they don't seem that bad.

My vote definitely goes to those Presidents who have abused American power, to the detriment of the rest of the globe.

Johnson, Nixon, Bush Jr., hang your (respectively) ugly, lying and empty, heads in shame.