Thanks for the comments. I haven't attempted a review of all the available textbooks, although that is an obvious step one could take. Valeri Hansen's approaches in all her books are similar to mine--indeed, there are lots of specialized and even more general works that challenge the paradigm I'm critiquing in the review.

As for terminology: I say use China as a rough geographic, not a political term. One could do the same with Korea or Xinjiang (as I did in my book Eurasian Crossroads). In doing so, we will say that Xixia, Nanzhao and even Xiongnu were states in China, China-based states. We teach the daotong lineage of "dynasties" as a historiographical phenomenon, but not as the continuous history of some metaphysical entity called "China." The main thing is to guard against the impression that China is a continuous unitary political entity.

I changed the wording re. Xi's waiving of the established norm of term limits for himself. We'll see whether he ever retires or not!

James A. Millward 米華健 is professor of history at Georgetown University and mandolinist for By & By.