Read on Twitter
I wanted to expand a little bit more on what it would mean to have an IR/strategy curriculum that actually took in the history of the rest of the world, rather than just Europe.
One of the problems here has often been that accounts that *do* try to take in Asia have sometimes taken self-justifying mythologies by Asian states at face value, like the portrayal of the tributary system as consensual and positive or the downplaying of the military.
So a variety of readings, including from the perspective of the people at the receiving end of imperial power, is extremely important. So is a sense of the geopolitical competitions and identities of the past, rather than back-projecting modern statehoods.
But also, an awful lot of the *grunt work* of telling the history simply hasn't been done in English. I don't mean even deep analysis here, I mean the simple reckoning of battles, invasions, deals, and betrayals.
A global IR can't rely on everyone reading Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Hindi, and Arabic. And even in those languages, the military history in particular is often underwritten (Japanese probably the least so.)
So part of any project of global IR is simply *introducing* some of these conflicts - sometimes huge, world-changing affairs - to a wider audience.
The goal here is, at a minimum, to have people intelligently citing non-European examples *because they've heard of an read about them.* And that happens when their teachers and textbook writers use them, but also when popular history stretches to include them.
This obviously doesn't just go for Asia. There's an incredible amount of work that's been done on Mesoamerican polities before Columbus, for instance, in the last few decades. Asia's just the field I know well, and which to some degree is the *easiest* to include.
