@PekingMike Chinese diplomats leading Chinese community groups in joint oath ceremonies where participants state their commitment to safeguarding the motherland and making China great once more
@PekingMike Of course New York City funds are being channeled back into these same influence orgs. Of course.
"[Councilwoman Susan Zhuang] has distributed more than $300,000 in city funds to tax-exempt Chinese American nonprofits that backed her..."
Pedagogically unique--very different from most mathematics texts.
If you come from a humanist background or otherwise worry that you don't "get" math, I strongly recommend these.
I also recommend them if you passed through these classes without ever feeling like you understood, at a deeper level, why you were doing the manipulations you were doing. Braver will fix that.
The key to the book are carefully scaffolded problem sets not designed to test knowledge so much as to lead the reader/problem solver to discover truths themselves. Some of his best problems will be something like "10. Now go explain this concept to another human being."
Implicit in the piece is that the best model for this future China is either periods of Chinese weakness in more recent history or to its relationship with other neoconfucian powers when itself was a strong neoconfucian empire.
My thread explains why the second precedent is no convincing to me; the first just strikes me as obviously unwise.
I think the time has come for me to write my take on @daveckang's entire research ouvre--its strengths and the limitations I find in its central arguments.
I do think that his new piece in IO really rests on ideas and assumptions of this earlier work, even if they are not cited.
Essentially I think all of these books, and the many articles that precede them, are variations on a central theme -- a thesis about Chinese statecraft that extends back several thousand years but is rooted in concerns about the present.
The concern with the present is this: Kang is worried, and has been worried for two decades, about the possibility of war between America and China.
It seems like the claim "absent slavery industrialization and capitalism would have gone chugging along just fine, thank you, and probably would have grown faster" seems different to me than "slavery did not play a decisive role in American/British industrialization."
Maybe there is a motte bailey thing here, though each side has its own motte and its own bailey. One side wants to claim that industrial capitalism could have only been created via slavery. This is wrong.
One of the takeaways from this book’s section of the Ming Dyansty was just, for lack of a better term, how hard core the Ming officialdom could be.
The Ming is just full of stories of these Confucian officials standing up to emperors knowing full well it meant they would be killed for doing so. Real Christians being fed to the lions energy.
Two weeks ago Christian Whiton, who served in the first Trump admin State Department, published an essay for @DominoTheoryMag that went viral in Taiwan.
Its title: "How Taiwan Lost Trump."
The essay went *so* viral, in fact, that the Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a press release rebutting it