Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History 16 (CMR 16) covering North America, South-East Asia, China, Japan and Australasia in the period 1800-1914, is a further volume in a general history of relations between the two faiths from the 7th century to the early 20th century. It comprises a series of introductory essays and the main body of detailed entries. These treat all the works, surviving or lost, that have been recorded. They provide biographical details of the authors, descriptions and assessments of the works themselves, and complete accounts of manuscripts, editions, translations and studies. The result of collaboration between numerous leading scholars, CMR 16, along with the other volumes in this series, is intended as a basic tool for research in Christian-Muslim relations.
Section Editors: Clinton Bennett, Luis F. Bernabe Pons, Jaco Beyers, Emanuele Colombo, Lejla Demiri, Martha Frederiks, David D. Grafton, Stanisław Grodź, Alan Guenther, Vincenzo Lavenia, Arely Medina, Alain Messaoudi, Gordon Nickel, Claire Norton, Reza Pourjavady, Douglas Pratt, Radu Păun, Charles Ramsey, Peter Riddell, Umar Ryad, Mehdi Sajid, Cornelia Soldat, Karel Steenbrink, Charles Tieszen, Carsten Walbiner, Catherina Wenzel.
Filipino American Transnational Activism: Diasporic Politics among the Second Generation offers an account of how Filipinos born or raised in the United States often defy the multiple assimilationist agendas that attempt to shape their understandings of themselves. Despite conditions that might lead them to reject any kind of relationship to the Philippines in favor of a deep rootedness in the United States, many forge linkages to the “homeland” and are actively engaged in activism and social movements transnationally. Though it may well be true that most Filipino Americans have an ambivalent relationship to the Philippines, many of the chapters of this book show that other possibilities for belonging and imaginaries of “home” are being crafted and pursued.
Richard T. Chu,
University of Massachusetts Augusto F. Espiritu,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Mariam Lam,
University of California, Riverside
For some time now, studies on Southeast Asians have often situated the experiences of these peoples within the territorial boundaries of their countries and within the regional framework of Southeast Asia. Geographically fixed to the Philippines, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brunei, East Timor, and Singapore, Southeast Asia emerges, as critical area studies underscore, as a site marked by multivalent politics, histories, and cultures. The processes of globalization, neoliberalism, and war have unmoored such fixities in the Eastern as much as in the Western Hemispheres, causing tectonic shifts in the constructions of memory, massive population movements and migrations, and ever new projects and worldings responding to various regimes of the “modern.” Whereas Southeast Asian studies may remain regionally focused, Southeast Asian American studies must increase its focus on the understudied complex, transnational flows and manifold expressions of the Southeast Asian diasporic experience.
Attendant to the rise of the Southeast Asian diasporas, Global Southeast Asian Diasporas (SEAD) provides a peer-reviewed forum for studies that specifically investigate the histories and experiences of Southeast Asian diasporic subjects across hemispheres. We especially invite studies that critically focus on the Southeast Asian experience from a transnational, comparative, and international perspective. SEAD welcomes submissions from a wide array of disciplinary fields (including history, sociology, political science, cultural studies, literary studies, and anthropology, among others) that innovatively interrogate themes such as refugees, political asylum, gender/sexuality, colonialism, globalization, empire, nation/nationalism, ethnicity, and transnationalism.
Manuscripts should be at least 90,000 words in length (including footnotes and bibliography). Manuscripts may also include illustrations, tables, and other visual material. The editors will consider proposals for original monographs, edited collections, translations, and critical primary source editions.
Authors are cordially invited to submit proposals and/or full manuscripts by email to the publisher
This article scrutinizes the controversy surrounding the resumption of Japanese Antarctic whaling from 1946, focusing on the negotiations and concessions that underline the nature of the Allied Occupation as an international undertaking. Britain, Norway, Australia, and New Zealand objected to Japanese pelagic whaling, chiefly on the grounds of its past record of wasteful and inefficient operations. Their opposition forced the Natural Resources Section of General Headquarters, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, to increase the number of Allied inspectors on board the two Japanese whaling factories from one to two, and to respond carefully to the criticisms they made of the conduct of Japanese whaling. U.S. sensitivity to international censure caused the Occupation to encourage the factory vessels to prioritize oil yields over meat and blubber for domestic consumption. Moreover, General Douglas MacArthur, the U.S. Occupation commander, summarily rejected a proposal to increase the number of Japanese fleets from two to three in 1947. With its preponderance of power, the United States successfully promoted Japanese Antarctic whaling, but a tendency to focus only on outcomes obscures the lengthy and difficult processes that enabled Japanese whaling expeditions to take place on an annual basis from late 1946.
In the decade following its founding in 1955, the men who led the foreign policy lobby the Committee of One Million Against the Admission of Communist China to the United Nations faced little concerted opposition to their attempts at preventing even the most minor alterations in the U.S. policy of both isolating and containing Communist China. But beginning with the Fulbright Hearings on China in March 1966, the trend of informed opinion moved sharply against them, as liberal Democrats became newly emboldened and moderates in both parties switched sides, inverting the bipartisan consensus against change the Committee relied upon. The 1968 election of former Vice President Richard M. Nixon, who had served alongside Committee hero John Foster Dulles, seemed to offer them newfound hope. But when the “New Nixon” proved unreceptive to the entreaties of his one-time allies, the Committee mounted a furious public relations campaign to rally belatedly the right-wing base and influence public opinion. Its failure illustrated both the limits of power of American conservatives over U.S. foreign policy while détente was ascendant, and the discontinuity in priorities between the Old Right from which the Committee emerged and the New Right that left it behind.