https://history.princeton.edu/people/michael-j-barany
I'm troubled that a Princeton history student can write about a worldwide phenomenon with so little reference to non-Western cultures. (This is a pet issue of mine, as I am an American who lived in east Asia for years after studying Chinese and sinology.) I don't think he has looked at development economics and the history of popular attitudes toward economics enough to understand how important basic understanding of mathematics is. In other words, I disagree with the conclusion of his article, summed up in the last paragraph.
"Imagining math to be everywhere makes it all too easy to ignore the very real politics of who gets to be part of the mathematical elite that really count—for technology, security, and economics, for the last war and the next one. Instead, if we see that this kind of mathematics has historically been built by and for the very few, we are called to ask who gets to be part of that few and what are the responsibilities that come with their expertise. We have to recognize that elite mathematics today, while much more inclusive than it was one or five or fifty centuries ago, remains a discipline that vests special authority in those who, by virtue of gender, race, and class, are often already among our society’s most powerful. If math were really everywhere, it would already belong to everyone equally. But when it comes to accessing and supporting math, there is much work to be done. Math isn’t everywhere."