2/Some of the people who say that criticism of China = racism are just trolls...Cold Warriors who are on the anti-American side and want an excuse to defend a rival of America.
But for many, the worry is real and legitimate.
3/There is no denying that there's a wave of racist hate against Asian Americans right now. And there's no denying that attitudes toward China (esp. about coronavirus) have something to do with it.
4/But it's also true that U.S.-China tensions can't be banished just by some lefties yelling that criticism of China is racist.
5/If Cold War 2 is going to happen, then it's going to happen. China has a lot of agency here; it's not just Mike Pompeo deciding to stir the pot, or whatever. China is in the driver's seat.
So we need to accept this fact, and roll with it.
6/@mattyglesias is right when he says that criticism of China is not racist by nature.
We can and should criticize governments without criticizing whole groups of people.
7/But that's a MORAL argument. In PRACTICAL terms, the threat of anti-Asian racism is real, and we need to take steps to minimize it. So here are some steps we can take...
8/First, we need to remember that RHETORIC MATTERS.
Here was what George W. Bush said about Muslims, directly after the 9/11 attacks.
9/And although there was a burst of anti-Muslim violence right after the attacks, it quickly (mostly) subsided. In fact, the big wave of anti-Muslim attacks came not in 2001-2002, but in 2015-2016!
10/In the five years after 9/11 there were two deadly attacks on Muslims (or perceived Muslims) in America.
In 2014-17, there were EIGHT such attacks.
11/Why?
Compare Bush's rhetoric above with the rhetoric of Donald Trump.
12/RHETORIC MATTERS, and Republicans need to start explicitly denouncing violence against Asians, loudly and repeatedly.
13/What can the rest of us do?
One thing we can do is to focus on our Asian allies and on Chinese dissidents.
The people actually under threat from Xi Jinping's government are not White people in America, but ASIAN PEOPLE, IN ASIA.
14/China's neighbors are under threat. China's minorities are under threat. China's dissidents are under threat.
15/Centering these people will remind Americans that U.S.-China tensions are not a "clash of civilizations", but a clash of governments and values.
16/And finally, the most important thing we can do to sever the link between U.S.-China tensions and anti-Asian racism is ASIAN REPRESENTATION.
We need to write a story of America in which Asian Americans play a more central role.
17/In fact, we actually tried to do this in World War 2.
Here is an excerpt from @ellendwu's "The Color of Success" -- a book you should definitely read.
This is a very subtle and interesting question. It seems clear that right-wing interest in personal health is a response to the terrible health of non-college Americans. And the rightists are trying to invent an alternative approach that resists the hegemony of academia.
The fact is, college-educated Americans tend to be hypocritical about health. They watch what they eat, get lots of exercise, and try to eat "organic", but they preach fat acceptance and a disability-based approach to poor health. Rightists don't know how to deal with that.
In fact, this is representative of a broader pattern. College-educated progressives get married and stay marriage, but denigrate the idea of marriage. They work hard but denigrate the idea of hard work. Their personal success is based on rampant, galloping hypocrisy.
1/Here's something a lot of people I talk to don't understand about Japanese urbanism, and why Japanese cities are so special.
2/Japanese cities feel different than big, dense cities elsewhere -- NYC, London, and Paris, but also other Asian cities like Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore.
There are many reasons for this, but today I'll focus on one: Zakkyo buildings.
3/When many people think of "mixed-use development", they think of stores on the first floor, apartments on the higher floors. This is sometimes called "shop-top housing" or "over-store apartments".
This is how most cities in the world do mixed-use development.
1/Here's something I've been wondering about recently: How did the U.S. miss the battery revolution?
With every other technological revolution, we anticipated it well in advance, and as a result we were the first -- or one of the first -- to take advantage of it.
2/The U.S. invented the computer, the internet, and modern AI. On all three of those, we were (or are) the leading nation. We talked ad infinitum about the benefits of those digital technologies long before they became a reality, allowing us to shape their eventual use.
3/We did the Human Genome Project. We invented mRNA vaccines. We did most of the research that drove down the costs of solar power. Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House more than 30 years before it became economical.
Russia's empire is a nested hierarchy. At the center is Moscow. Under them are mid-tier Russian cities and rural areas, then subject peoples like the Buryats, Sakha, and these African folks.
The closer you are to the center, the less fighting you do, and the more money you get.
In fact, the circles of Russian hierarchy don't stop at Moscow. There are privileged subgroups of Muscovites, then more privileged groups inside that circle, all the way up to the Tsar himself.
The principle still holds: Closer to the center = less fighting, more money.
The advantage of this organizational structure is that the more power you have, the less likely you are to ever suffer negative consequences from adverse shocks or bad decisions. All the losses from failed wars, bad economic decisions, etc. get taken by the less powerful.
In fact, it's not law even now. This executive order is (sadly) AGAINST the law and will probably be struck down, because our asylum law says we can't discriminate against asylum claimants for crossing the border illegally. That law needs to be changed by Congress.
The problem is that the U.S. is a party to the 1967 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, which says that your asylum system can't discriminate against people for being in the country illegally. We wrote our domestic law to comply with that treaty.
The non-discrimination provision is obviously stupid, so what we need to do is flout the 1967 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, and simply amend our domestic law to say "You can't claim asylum if you crossed illegally". But this would require an act of Congress.