Talk:Amy Chua

The newly added commentary section is obviously of dubious value. While criticism should be registered, calling someone an IMF/WorldBank hitman doesn't exactly accomplish that. SiberioS

I agree, so I've moved the commentary here. (See below.) In addition to the problematic namecalling, the commentary lacks references that would enable a reader to independently assess the validity of its claims. For example, the claim the Chua "does not understand the insignificance of Adi Sasano, but yet she cites him" would be a lot easier to assess if the commentary included citations of specific places in Chua's writings where she refers to Sasano.

Anyway, here's the commentary. --Sheldon Rampton 01:14, 16 Dec 2004 (EST)

Commentary

She does not have deep understand of actual event. Her prime sample to support cases in Indonesia are based on weak newspaper articles instead of actual interview and ground reporting.

For instance she does not understand the insignificance of Adi Sasono, but yet she cites him as an example of vocal swelling undercurrent of political turmoil in Indonesia in late 90's after the fall of Suharto. She incorrectly reads the situation that Indonesia be better off when social structure created under Suharto regime is maintained.

She has no idea the actual social condition of chinese in Indonesia, Indonesian law structure regarding chinese civil right and ownership, and larger economic structure. In fact she happily cited data generated by ICMI think-tank which was designed to create anti chinese sentiments. She has no understanding how Sukarno and Suharto put Indonesian chinese in their late 90's predicament.

The ultimate event that demolished her main thesis is of course the Indonesian open election. The general population largely elect a rather moderate party and utterly reject whole sale social restructuring she loudly proclaim will happen when there is free election.

All in all, she is a sensasionalist academian with aim to sell book. She shoehorn facts to fit her thesis and has zero reporting skill. Her book totally lacks historical understanding and context.

Ultimately She is an IMF and World bank hitman who creates reports to be fed into the system to justify fleecing the third world and maintaining corrupt status quo. She is the exact player that makes globalisation bad. She is the academian hacks who produce reports. Her work should be seen in such context.

.. is that the technical and scientific intelligensia [Galbraith's educational and scientific estate] are able to perform very significant services for those who really do own and manage the central isntitutions of society. In fact, they are able to provide them with the results of science and technology and scientific management and so on. Far more significant is that they are able to legitimize authoritarian control of wealth and institutions by making this control in the aura of science. Everyone knows that science is good and noble and worthy, and everyone is deeply in awe of technical expertise. If the intelligensia can make it appear that authoritarian control by the privilaged and allegedly the talented is a necessary condition of modern life, then they will have succeeded in legitimating precisely that kind of privilage. I believe that probably is the major contribution of the intelligentsia in the service of power and privilage.

pp 121, 'Language and Politics', Noam Chomsky, 2004

About second deletion

I deleted the added back commentary (though I was not logged in at the time) because the sysop made it clear that it belongs on the discussion page. It's not that any of us are particuarly sympathetic to the author, as evidenced by the sheer existence of this website, but that all commentary/criticism must be backed up by sources and citations, not by punditry. Otherwise we'd end up like townhall.com, with people shooting off without any sort of sources. SiberioS