Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ghenghis Khan Descendants Eat For Free

Posted by timothy on from the with-paying-adult-one-offer-per-customer dept.

pillageplunder writes "CNN has an article about a London restaurant that is offering diners the chance to see if they are descended from the great Khan (Genghis that is). If you are, then you get a free meal. The article delves a bit into bioarchaeology, with some pretty interesting tidbits of info."

5 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory nitpick post. by Feztaa · · Score: 1, Informative

    First of all, Arthur wasn't the descendant of Khan, the guy overseeing the demolition of his house is. Secondly, he's not just any descendant, he's the direct, male line descendant (Khan was his father's father's father's ... etc father). ;)

    1. Re:Obligatory nitpick post. by ianezz · · Score: 3, Informative

      First of all, Arthur wasn't the descendant of Khan, the guy overseeing the demolition of his house is.

      In fact, I'm referring to Mr. Prosser, who is convinced by Ford to lie in the mud in place of Arthur to block bulldozers, so Ford and Arthur may go to the pub.

  2. Re:Ashworth the Enlightened by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Informative

    hmm, yes I grant that could be an interpretation

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  3. Re:They are going to be giving out a lot of meals. by Sparr0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    600 years is only 30 generations. Even allowing for 2 children per person (4 per couple) that only gives you one gibi-descendant (:-p) now, roughly 1/6 of the population.

  4. Re:no, hang on a second by Ayaress · · Score: 2, Informative

    He also killed THEIR men, enslaved THEIR boys, stole THEIR livestock, and burned THEIR cities. And even so, the general mindset in most of the world running from, say, 10,000 BC to about 1800 AD (and into the 1900's in many parts of the world) was that women WERE property. When talking about such a society, saying the women were property isn't sexist - it's a fact. Were the black slaves on plantations property? Yes they were. That doesn't mean its right. it doesn't mean I think they SHOULD have been property, or that its in any way right for one person to be the property of another - it's just saying it how it was. They were property.