View the H-Asia Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Asia's April 2007 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-Asia's April 2007 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-Asia home page.
H-ASIA April 4, 2007 Chinese scholars and Chinese history (response) ****************************************************************** From: Tom Oey <oeytg@yahoo.com> This is an interesting topic, I'd like to make a few personal observations: 1. When speaking of "Chinese" scholars in America, one is really speaking of Chinese American scholars, since in order to teach in America one must be a green-card holder or US citizen. Thereby, probably a Chinese scholar with a Ph.D. in Chinese history from Oxford or other reputable European universities would be disqualified from teaching in America due to lack of citizen credentials. 2. Only 1% of Americans are Chinese Americans. This percentage differs greatly from the world percentage (African Americans to Africans in the world, Hispanic Americans to Latin Americans which are roughly equal at about 12-20% both nationally and worldwide). Whereas, 22% of the world population is Chinese. The historical reason, of course is the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. 3. Of Chinese Americans, perhaps only half are first generation Chinese Americans. Generally, most scholars of Chinese history in America are first generation Chinese Americans (generally they had been born and raised in China and had finished at least a bachelor's degree in China). The percentage of first generation Chinese American immigrants interested in studying humanities and social sciences tends to be low, as many prefer professionally-oriented careers. 4. Of second and third generation Chinese Americans, those that are interested in humanities and social sciences with an interest in ethnic studies tend to study Asian-American studies rather than Chinese history. 5. Multicultural demands of scholars. Works by a noted Yale scholar of Chinese history show a mastery of both European and Chinese history. Also, scholars are expected to be familiar with trans-Atlantic sinology. (Europeans with a Ph.D. in Chinese history in Europe have an easier time migrating to the US than do Chinese with such degrees.) Scholars of Chinese history are expected to master Japanese as well as Chinese. 6. Double standards for language credentials. Preference for native speakers of English (a euphemism for white Americans). Actually, to discriminate by one's English accent amounts to discrimination according to national origin. Many American Ph.D.'s in Chinese history or China missionaries with university positions cannot function in Chinese. This may not be the case in the top universities, but is generally the case in other universities. One year of American university Chinese is equivalent to one year of Chinese language study in a primary school in China. An ethnic Chinese who has a secondary education or self-study in China or Southeast Asia, however will not be considered credentialled academically in the USA, because he/she has not taken undergraduate and graduate level courses in Chinese history and literature. 7. As a relatively recent ethnic group (i.e. most Chinese entered America after changes brought about in the 1965 Immigration Act), Chinese have less tendency to emphasize their rights than other historic minority groups. They have less say unless combining with other Asian Americans--which dilutes the impact for Chinese historians. 8. Generally speaking, I think Chinese, Japanese and Korean studies are better represented in American universities than Southeast Asian and South Asian studies which are less well represented. Unfortunately, being fluent in Chinese and Indonesian has no meaning for obtaining a job in comparison to being fluent in Chinese and Japanese. (I've heard Korean scholars must know Japanese, Chinese and Russian as well as Korean). 9. Need to develop indigenous funding. What percentage of funding for Chinese history research derives from Chinese Americans, and what percentage from foundations established by European Americans? Funding relates to power, which in turn relates to who should be the mediators of power (whites or Chinese Americans). The same can be said of other Asian Asian/American ethnic studies programs. 10. Foundations established and adminstered by European Americans set the standards for academic qualifications for projects worthy of research funding, which results in a vicious circle discouraging Chinese American scholars. 11. Correlation between economic development and trade relations to research funding. Scholarship related to Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, nations which have greater populations than Japan and Korea, receive a relative pittance. 12. A Ph.D. in Chinese history in China would generally not be recognized in America. Most Chinese American scholars of Chinese history may have to earn a Ph.D. in America. A certain percentage of scholars have two Ph.D.'s, one in China and one in America. I don't think the obstacles are unsurmountable, however. Although Chinese American scholars are aware of the obstacles, many do manage to surmount them. Best regards Thomas G. Oey, Ph.D. Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China ************************************************************************* To post to H-ASIA simply send your message to: <H-ASIA@h-net.msu.edu> For holidays or short absences send post to: <listserv@h-net.msu.edu> with message: SET H-ASIA NOMAIL Upon return, send post with message SET H-ASIA MAIL H-ASIA WEB HOMEPAGE URL: http://h-net.msu.edu/~asia/
|