Monthly Archives: April 2007

2007 statistical portrait of APNA populations

The UCLA Asian American Studies Center, as an official U.S. Census Information Center (as a co-partner with National Coalition for Asian Pacific Community Development), is pleased to provide this 2007 statistical portrait of the Asian American and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander populations produced by the US Census Bureau for Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, which will take place in May, 2007. The portrait provides current census data, population projections, and internet links that should be useful for research, planning, writing and general educational purposes. Please see the “Editor’s note” at the end of this announcement for more information. The first section provides information on “Asians,” while the second part highlights “Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders”.

Asians

14.4 million
The estimated number of U.S. residents in July 2005 who said they were Asian or Asian in combination with one or more other races. This group comprised about 5 percent of the total population. California had the largest population (4.9 million) of people of this group. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/006808.html>

<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/007263.html>

3%
Percentage growth of the Asian population between 2004 and 2005, the highest of any race group during that time period. The increase in the Asian population over the period totaled 421,000. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/006808.html>

3.3 million
Number of Asians of Chinese descent. Chinese-Americans are the largest Asian detailed group, followed by Filipinos (2.8 million), Asian Indians (2.5 million), Vietnamese (1.5 million), Koreans (1.4 million) and Japanese (1.2 million). These estimates represent the number of people who are either of a particular detailed group only or are of that group in combination with one or more other Asian detailed groups or races. (Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

Education

49%
The percentage of single-race Asians 25 and older who have a bachelor’s degree or higher level of education. This compares to 27 percent for all people 25 and older. (Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

86%
The percentage of single-race Asians 25 and older who have at least a high school diploma. This compares to 84 percent for all people 25 and older. (Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

20%
The percentage of single-race Asians 25 and older who have a graduate or professional degree (e.g., master’s or doctorate). This compares with 10 percent for all people 25 and older. (Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

The Asian population comprises many groups who differ in languages spoken, culture and length of residence in the United States. This is reflected in the demographic characteristics of these groups. For instance, 68 percent of Asian Indians 25 and older had a bachelor’s degree or more education, and 36 percent had a graduate or professional degree. The corresponding numbers for Vietnamese-Americans were 26 percent and 7 percent, respectively.
(Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance

$61,094
Median household income for single-race Asians in 2005, the highest among all race groups.
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/007419.html>

Median household income differed greatly by Asian group. For Asian Indians, for example, the median income in 2005 was $73,575; for Vietnamese-Americans, it was $50,925. (Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

11.1%
Poverty rate for single-race Asians in 2005, up from 9.8 percent in 2004. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/007419.html>

17.9%
Percentage of single-race Asians without health insurance coverage in 2005, up from
16.5 percent in 2004.
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/007419.html>

Businesses

Source for the statements referenced in this section, unless otherwise indicated:
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/business_ownership/006814.html>

1.1 million
Number of businesses owned by Asian-Americans in 2002, up 24 percent from 1997. The rate of increase in the number of Asian-owned businesses was about twice that of the national average for all businesses.

More than $326 billion
Receipts of Asian-American-owned businesses in 2002, up 8 percent from 1997. An estimated 319,468 Asian-owned businesses had paid employees, and their receipts totaled more than
$291 billion. There were 49,636 Asian-owned firms with receipts of $1 million or more, accounting for 4.5 percent of the total number of Asian-owned firms and nearly 68 percent of their total receipts.

In 2002, more than three in 10 Asian-owned firms operated in professional, scientific and technical services, as well as other services such as personal services, and repair and maintenance.

2.2 million
Number of people employed by an Asian-owned business. There were 1,866 Asian-owned firms with 100 or more employees, generating nearly $52 billion in gross receipts (18 percent of the total revenue for Asian-owned employer firms).

46%
Percentage of all Asian-owned firms that were either Chinese-owned or Asian Indian-owned.

Nearly 6 in 10
Proportion of all Asian-owned firms in the United States that were in California, New York, Texas and New Jersey.

New York, Los Angeles, Honolulu and San Francisco Cities with the highest number of Asian-owned firms.

1 in 3
Proportion of Asian-owned businesses that were home-based. This is the lowest proportion for any minority group. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/business_ownership/007537.html>

Languages

2.3 million
The number of people 5 and older who speak Chinese at home. After Spanish, Chinese is the most widely spoken non-English language in the country. Tagalog and Vietnamese have more than 1 million speakers each. (Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

Serving Our Nation

293,321
The number of single-race Asian-American military veterans. About one in three was 65 and older. (Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

Jobs

47%
The proportion of civilian employed single-race Asians 16 and older who work in management, professional and related occupations, such as financial managers, engineers, teachers and registered nurses. Additionally, 23 percent work in sales and office occupations, 15 percent in service occupations and 11 percent in production, transportation and material moving occupations. (Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

Counties

1.4 million
The number of Asians (alone or in combination with one or more other races) in Los Angeles County, Calif., in 2005, which tops the nation’s counties. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/007263.html>

Age Distribution

35.1
Median age, in years, of the single-race Asian population in 2005. This is younger than the corresponding figure of 36.4 years for the population as a whole. (Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

The Future

33.4 million
The projected number of U.S. residents in 2050 who will identify themselves as single-race Asians. They would comprise 8 percent of the total population by that year.
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/001720.html>

213%
The projected percentage increase between 2000 and 2050 in the population of people who identify themselves as single-race Asian. This compares with a 49 percent increase in the population as a whole over the same period of time.
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/001720.html>

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders

990,000
The estimated number of U.S. residents in July 2005 who said they are Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, or Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander in combination with one or more other races. This group comprised 0.3 percent of the total population. There were 282,000 Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders in Hawaii, which led all states.
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/006808.html>

<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/007263.html>

1.5%
Percentage growth of the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population between
2004 and 2005, the highest of any race group except for Asians. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/006808.html>

Education

15%
The percentage of single-race Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders 25 and older who have at least a bachelor’s degree. This compares with 27 percent for the total population this age. (Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

83%
The percentage of single-race Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders 25 and older who have at least a high school diploma. This compares with 84 percent for the total population this age. (These two percentages are not significantly different from one another.) (Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

4%
The percentage of single-race Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders 25 and older who have obtained a graduate or professional degree. This compares with 10 percent for the total population this age. (Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance

$54,318
The three-year average (2003-2005) median income of households whose householders reported their race as Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander but did not report any other race. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/007419.html>

12.2%
The three-year average (2003-2005) poverty rate for those who repLinkorted their race as Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander but did not report any other race.
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/007419.html>

21.8%
The three-year average (2003-2005) percentage without health insurance for those who reported their race as Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander but did not report any other race.
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/007419.html>

Businesses

Source for the statements referenced in this section: <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/business_ownership/007092.html>

28,948
Number of Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses in 2002, up 49 percent from 1997. The rate of growth was more than three times the national average. The 3,693 Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses with paid employees employed more than 29,000 and generated revenues of $3.5 billion.

2,415
Number of Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned firms in Honolulu alone. Honolulu led the nation.

$4.3 billion
Receipts for Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned businesses in 2002, up 3 percent from 1997. There were 727 Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned firms with receipts of $1 million or more. These firms accounted for 2.5 percent of the total number of Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned firms and 66.8 percent of their total receipts.

In 2002, nearly 21,000 Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned firms operated in health care and social assistance; other services (such as personal services, and repair and maintenance); retail trade; administrative and support, and waste management and remediation services; professional, scientific and technical services; and construction.

28
Number of Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned firms with 100 or more employees. These firms generated $698 million in gross receipts – 19.9 percent of the total revenue for Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned employer firms.

53%
Percentage of all Native Hawaiian- and Other Pacific Islander-owned firms in Hawaii or California. These two states accounted for 62 percent of business revenue.

Serving Our Nation

28,084
The number of single-race Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander military veterans. One in five was 65 and older. (Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

Jobs

23%
The proportion of civilian employed single-race Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders 16 and older who work in management, professional and related occupations, such as financial managers, engineers, teachers and registered nurses. Meanwhile, 30 percent work in sales and office occupations, 22 percent in service occupations and 15 percent in production, transportation and material moving occupations. (The percentages for management, professional and related occupations and service occupations are not statistically different.) (Source: 2005 American Community

Age Distribution

30.6
The median age of the single-race Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population in 2005, much younger than the median age of 36.4 for the population as a whole. (Source: 2005 American Community Survey)

Note: American Community Survey estimates are based on the population of one race only and do not include those living in group quarters.


Don T. Nakanishi, Ph.D.
Director and Professor
UCLA Asian American Studies Center
3230 Campbell Hall
PO Box 951546
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1546
phone: (310) 825-2974
fax: (310) 206-9844
e-mail: dtn-at-ucla-dot-edu
Please visit the Center’s web site: www.sscnet.ucla.edu/aasc

Advertisements

Book Review _ Immigrant Faiths

H-NET BOOK REVIEW
Published by H-AmstdyATh-net.msuDOTedu (February, 2007)

Karen I. Leonard, Alex Stepick, Manuel A. Vasquez, and Jennifer Holdaway, eds. Immigrant Faiths: Transforming Religious Life in America. Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2005. 259 pp. Notes, bibliography, index. $59.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-7591-0816-5.

Reviewed for H-Amstdy by Jodi Eichler-Levine, Department of Religion, Columbia University.

Crossing National and Religious Boundaries

Ironically, Immigrant Faiths: Transforming Religious Life in America, an excellent anthology that presents many new models for studying religion and migration in America, displays one of the most classically flawed conceptualizations of “religion” in its title: with the prominence of the term “faiths,” its front cover reiterates the traditional nineteenth-century Protestant focus on religion as that which is believed, a conceptualization that has long since been critiqued, not least by many of the scholars writing within this volume itself. Nonetheless, Immigrant Faiths provides a collection of rich case studies on the dynamics of migration and religious life in the United States. The essays, which come from a range of disciplines including history, sociology, and religious studies, make up a volume that represents work affiliated with the International Migration Program of the Social Science Research Council.

The collection is framed by an introduction from editor Karen Leonard and by broad essays from two of the volume’s other editors, both of whom attempt to assess the state of the field. The opening piece, by anthropologist Alex Stepick, examines how religious issues have affected migration studies, while the closing essay, by religionist Manuel A. Vasquez, assesses how the question of migration has influenced scholars in religious studies; the two studies complement well.

The book’s main body of essays represents a wide variety of work. Chapters by Derek Chang and Danielle Brune Sigler bring an historical angle to the project as a whole. Chang’s piece, on American Baptist Home Missions among Chinese immigrants and ex-slaves in the late nineteenth century, examines the overlap of civic and religious discourse in the group’s activities. Similarly, Sigler addresses complexities of race, religion, and leadership in her biographical study of Charles Manuel “Sweet Daddy” Grace, an immigrant from Cape Verde who founded the Holiness-influenced United House of Prayer for All People.

Transnationalism is another major theme of the volume; it receives strong treatment in Kenneth J. Guest’s “Religion and Transnational Migration in the New Chinatown,” which chronicles how religious communities are part of the complex ways that recent Fuzhounese immigrants in New York relate to their new daily life in America and to their home villages in China.

Although some of the volume’s contributors make a point of unpacking the idea of “religion,” such discussions could have been more nuanced. Stepick, for example, argues that Nietzsche is “dead wrong today, at least for immigrants” (p. 11), an observation that is not really news in religious studies; indeed, as Leonard notes in the introduction, one of the goals of this anthology was to move beyond traditional Western conceptions of religion, taking into account the general demise of the “secularism” hypothesis. For the most part, the volume succeeds in this area; in particular, Ronald Nakasone and Susan Sered’s essay, “Ritual Transformations in Okinawan Immigrant Communities” attends to rich complications in the identities of Okinawan immigrants and argues against faith-oriented conceptions of religion. Similarly, Guest notes that the practices of Fuzhounese immigrants cannot easily be reduced to any singular tradition (p. 150). Even Nakasone and Sered, however, rely upon somewhat older literature in their overt theorizing of religion. It would be interesting to see how various essays in this volume might work in conversation with Thomas Tweed’s Crossing and Dwelling: A Theory of Religion (2006), which was published after Immigrant Faiths went to press.

Another way in which this volume moves beyond older paradigms of religious studies is in its attention to domestic religion and to other non-congregational instances of lived religion. Pyong Gap Min’s “Religion and the Maintenance of Ethnicity among Immigrants: A Comparison of Indian Hindus and Korean Protestants” is particularly strong in this area; similarly, in “The Protestant Ethic and the Dis-Spirit of Vodou,” Karen Richman examines the nuanced varieties of religious practice among the Haitians of Palm Bach country, including “performance events” centered around cassette players with recorded “letters”; she notes how “creative uses of cassette tape and video recorders have resulted in a reconfiguration of the boundaries of the ritual performance space, allowing immigrants to continue to serve their spirits back home” (p. 175).

At the same time, there is plenty of attention to more public religious practices, including Marie Friedmann Marquardt’s “Structural and Cultural Hybrids: Religious Congregational Life and Public Participation of Mexicans in the New South” and Thomas J. Douglas’s “Changing Religious Practices among Cambodian Immigrants in Long Beach and Seattle.” The overlaps of civic and religious life emerge throughout the book, as in Marquardt’s description of a “human-sized paper mache replica of the Statue of Liberty with a huge red question mark wrapped around its body” (p. 198), which had been made and used by one congregation’s youth in public protests; this anecdote illustrates the question of how immigrants’ religious identities are performed in the public square, and how their identities as Americans are performed within church buildings. Questions of civic life and national (or transnational) identities were thus a recurring theme, one that was highlighted in the volume’s framing essays and that should come to the fore more explicitly in future work in this field, particularly in light of the major protests concerning U.S. immigration policy in May 2006, and given the continuing post-9/11 challenges facing many immigrant communities.

As other reviewers have noted and as Leonard acknowledges, it is unfortunate that the book does not contain any case studies on Muslim immigrants.[1] Likewise, although this was specifically a volume tilted towards the “new” religious communities entering America, more transhistorical comparisons with studies of Jewish, Irish, Italian, and other earlier waves of immigration would have provided a deeper conversation. A few of the book’s authors, notably Stepick and Min, do employ such comparisons, to good effect.

Some of the ground not covered here has already been taken up in Religion and Immigration: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Experiences in the United States (2003), edited by Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, Jane I. Smith, and John L. Esposito, also published by Alta Mira Press; these two volumes might complement one another well in a classroom setting. Similarly, Making Muslim Space in North America and Europe (1996), edited by Barbara Daly Metcalf, provides strong work on the Muslims who are missing from this volume. Overall, Immigrant Faiths is a valuable and timely collection of essays, with nuanced case studies and assessments of the flexibilities and complications of immigrant religions; it will be useful in the classroom and the library alike for scholars of religion, migration, and American Studies.

Note

[1]. Sarah Stohlman, review of Immigrant Faiths: Transforming Religious Life in America, ed. Karen L. Leonard et al., Sociology of Religion 6.3 (2006): 334.

Copyright (c) 2007 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews editorial staff at hbooksATmail.h-net.msuDOTedu.

Book Review _ Consuming Citizenship: Children of Asian Immigrant Entrepreneurs

H-NET BOOK REVIEW
Published by H-ChildhoodATh-net.msuDOTedu (December, 2006)

Lisa Sun-Hee Park. Consuming Citizenship: Children of Asian Immigrant Entrepreneurs. Asian America Series. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005. xii + 169 pp. Tables, notes, bibliography, index. $19.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-8047-5248-0.

Reviewed for H-Childhood by Melissa R. Klapper, Department of History, Rowan University.

Status and Sacrifice

Lisa Sun-Hee Park’s sociological study of the children of Chinese American and Korean American immigrant small-business owners takes as its departure point the challenge facing second generation members of the “model minority.” While they are expected by both their families and American social imperatives to acculturate into “good Americans,” both their families’ cultural and economic structures and an unstated yet still deeply felt American racism make such acculturation difficult to secure. Park argues that Chinese and Korean American children resolve this conflict through consumption of American cultural prescriptions for achievement as well as material goods. They attempt to secure social citizenship by following injunctions to work hard, to parlay advanced education into economic security, and to purchase markers of upward mobility that can be publicly displayed, such as luxury cars and homes. Only this kind of outcome can repay their parents’ many sacrifices and demonstrate their claim to the American success story.

In order to explore the experiences of Korean and Chinese American children of immigrant entrepreneurs, Park conducted a series of in-depth interviews with more than one hundred adolescents and young adults and their families. She visited her subjects in their homes and workplaces, visiting several different regions of the United States. All the families she investigated were beneficiaries of the post-1965 U.S. immigration reforms that for the first time in decades allowed significant migration from Asia. The majority of the adolescents and young adults grew up in families that owned small businesses. These businesses functioned as the economic, social, and familial focal points of their lives. Park convincingly demonstrates the critical role played by family businesses in the experiences of her subjects. As a result of their parents’ entrepreneurship, Chinese and Korean American young people began to work early, spent little time with their families outside their places of business, and served as literal and figurative translators for their parents. They also developed commitments to repaying their parents both by surpassing them in educational and economic achievement and by buying them goods that would make their sacrifices appear worthwhile.

The theme of sacrifice appears repeatedly in this study. Virtually everyone Park interviewed referred to his/her parents’ sacrifices in making the difficult decision to migrate, working so hard, and, in some cases, giving up professional accomplishment in Korea or China to secure a better future for their children. In one interesting chapter, Park explores the ways in which the children recast their parents’ migration narratives into an American mold by adopting familiar elements of rags-to-riches stories or Western tales of rugged, iconoclastic heroes. Yet there are other sacrifices as well, though possibly not as apparent to the people Park interviewed. It seems that many Chinese and Korean American young people feel such an obligation to repay their parents that they sacrifice their own dreams and desires. Nearly all the interview subjects had either gone into medicine, law, and business or were preparing to do so; these were the professions they assumed would have the greatest possible earning power and were therefore the only options open to them. Following their own interests at the expense of economic potential would disappoint their parents and inhibit their ability to repay them with either cultural or economic capital. As Park notes with a wink, “Apparently, it is not so impressive to tell the neighbors that your child decided to become a sociologist” (p. 110). Parental expectations clearly impose a kind of family discipline that some of the children could identify but few were willing to challenge, having been inculcated from the earliest ages that the ultimate success of their families would depend on their educational and economic achievement. Because many, though not all, of the subjects lived in tightly knit ethnic neighborhoods, family discipline was further reinforced by the cultural expectations of the community. Park also argues that the label of “model minority” exerts its own influence, as the willingness of American society as a whole to accept Asian immigrants depends heavily on the same kind of educational and economic attainment that Chinese and Korean immigrant families require of their children.

Perhaps inevitably, the children have a mixed reaction to these expectations and particularly to the small businesses that are supposed to provide the launching pad for their success. Many resent having to work so many hours in family businesses, often at the expense of time spent with peers. They regret the fact that they have little family time outside the business and compare their own families unfavorably with the “American” families they encounter in the media. They cringe when they see their parents act in a servile manner to appease customers. Since relatively few of the businesses are very successful, though many are stable, they express astonishment that their parents continue working so hard for so little reward. On the other hand, many of the children, especially young adults who by going away to college achieved a measure of independence, acknowledge their parents’ success in building businesses out of nothing. They point out that they did have family time at the businesses, though not the kind of leisurely family time they might have liked. Few seem troubled by the fact that they were not paid for their work in the family businesses, since they received allowances and money for whatever they needed. They openly admit to manipulating their parents by claiming they needed more time and money for school-related activities.

Park’s explorations of this ambivalence highlight the most engaging part of the book, the voices of the Korean and Chinese children and young adults themselves. The book is peppered with quotes from the interviews, and by subtly focusing on a few people so that the reader comes to know these individuals, Park makes good use of what were clearly meaningful encounters between sociologist and subjects. This feature of the book is particularly important in enlisting the reader’s confidence, since by her own admission Park did not seek a scientific sample of interview subjects. When Sky speaks at length about her adolescent experience of realizing she was the lone Asian amid her group of white friends (p. 50), or when Robert confesses his near panic at his parents’ dreams of retirement, which include his marriage to their best friends’ daughter and all of them moving into a big house together that Robert’s good job will enable him to purchase (pp. 125-126), the book comes alive. There are enough similarities among the various narratives sampled throughout the book to help support Park’s conclusions about the family structures and coming of age experiences of the children of immigrant entrepreneurs.

Where the book is somewhat less successful is in the application of a variety of social theories to lived experience. Park wants to make connections between social citizenship and consumption, but it is never entirely clear how these theoretical categories relate to the experiences she describes. For example, although she demonstrates that Korean and Chinese children seek high status, high-paying careers, the extended metaphor she employs about immigrant children “consuming” a particular brand of the American dream falls flat. It may be that the relative brevity of the book prevents her from exploring the theoretical basis of her project; as it is, though, the book suffers from some of the usual problems of lightly revised dissertations in insisting on a theoretical overlay that does not add as much as it could to what is certainly an interesting topic within the sociology of immigration.

Still, there is a great deal of interest for historians of childhood and immigration in this book. Focusing on both Korean and Chinese populations allows Park to discuss the construction of an “Asian” identity, an issue that was also part of the experience of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century immigrants from Japan, China, and Korea. It is fascinating to speculate on the process by which the most feared and loathed populations of turn-of-the-century immigrants became models of achievement for post-1965 immigrants and immigration policy. All the conflicts over language, acculturation, education, and work that faced turn-of-the-century immigrant children resurface, though slightly altered, in the experiences of the children of Chinese and Korean immigrant entrepreneurs. The development of adolescence in the earlier part of the twentieth century was shaped in part by the experiences of immigrant children; by the late twentieth century, what Chinese and Korean young people resent most of all is the impingement of their family structure on their own experiences of adolescence. Then and now, constant cultural negotiation is a central feature of immigrant children’s lives.

Copyright (c) 2006 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews editorial staff at hbooksATmail.h-net.msuDOTedu.

UC Irvine seeks Part-Time Asian American Studies faculty

Part-time Non Senate Faculty
Department of Asian American Studies
University of California Irvine

The Department of Asian American Studies at the University of California Irvine invites applications for part-time Non Senate Faculty positions with primary responsibility in teaching upper division interdisciplinary courses in Asian American Studies for 2007-08. Minimum annual base salary is $39,096; appointments will be made at 37.5% for one course. Appointment date for Fall Quarter 10/02/07-12/31/07, Winter Quarter 2008 1/01/08-03/31/08, Spring Quarter 2008 4/1/08 to 6/30/08.

The applicants should demonstrate specialization in the following area of Asian American Studies:

Introduction to Asian American Studies
Filipino American Experience
Korean American Experience
Asian American Literature
Asian American Women
Asian American Education
Asian American Public Health
Asian American Public Policy
Asian American Selected Topics, e.g. Geography, Law, Urban & Regional Planning, Arts and Music

Applicants with a Ph.D. preferred. Applicants with an ABD or M.A. or equivalent will be considered. UC graduate students must have filed their dissertation or have a degree in hand by mid September 2007 to be eligible to teach Fall 07, mid December 2007 to be eligible to teach in Winter 08 and by mid March 2008 to be eligible to teach in Spring 08. Applicants must have a general understanding of the Asian American historical experience and specialization in a field that complements the existing Asian American Studies curriculum at UCI. Demonstrated ability to teach effectively on a culturally diverse campus and commitment to mentor multicultural students. Priority will be given to those with university teaching experience.

Asian American Studies at the University of California, Irvine offers a B.A. Degree in Asian American Studies, and undergraduate minor, and a graduate emphasis.

Send via e-mail to jfkurataATuciDOTedu followed by a hard copy of your application letter, curriculum vitae, teaching evaluations, sample syllabi and names and addresses of three references by June 1, 2007:

Steven Mailloux, Interim Chair
Department of Asian American Studies
University of California Irvine
300 Krieger Hall
Irvine, CA 92697-6900.

The University of California, Irvine is an equal opportunity employer committed to excellence through diversity and has an Advance Program for Faculty Equity and Diversity.

Asian Theological Summer Institute, May 29-June 3, 2007 (Philadelphia, PA)

The Asian Theological Summer Institute (ATSI) is a program of the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. ATSI is supported by the Henry Luce Foundation to encourage and promote “Asian Theological Studies” among Asians and Asian-Americans enrolled in theological education at the Ph.D and Th.D level in the United States. The Institute will function as an intensive doctoral level seminar and mentoring program. The Institute is bringing together well-known scholars and theologians to serve as instructors and mentors in themes related to Asian and Asian-American theology, hermeneutics, religious pluralism and post colonial studies.

The first ATSI is scheduled from May 29-June 3 in Philadelphia. Prof. Kwok Pui Lan, Prof. Andrew Sun Park, Prof. Eleazar Fernandez, Prof. R. S. Sugirtharajah and Prof. Paul Rajashekar will serve as instructors and mentors. The project has already received a good response from students and 15 students from diverse Asian cultural and linguistic backgrounds have been selected to participate. These doctoral students are studying in divinity schools and seminaries in the Eastern United States. More applications to participate in the program were received than anticipated. Those who could not get in this year will be invited for the second ATSI to be held in the summer of ’08. A full report of the project will be shared with you later this summer. For more information you may contact Dr. Paul Rajashekar.

Symposium on Religion in China, July 13-15, 2007, Shanghai, China

FROM H-ASIA
April 4, 2007

This announcement below is for international scholars or scholars residing outside mainland China. Scholars in China should contact Professor Xiangping Li at Shanghai University.

Symposium on Religion in China, July 13-15, 2007, Shanghai, China

The Fourth International Symposium on the Social Scientific Study of Religion in China is to be held on July 13-15, 2007 at Shanghai University. The theme of the Symposium is “Religious identities, religious congregations, and social change.” The keynote speakers include

Dr. Nancy T. Ammerman (Professor of Sociology at Boston University, USA);

Dr. Grace Davie (Professor of Sociology at the University of Exeter, UK).

Participation in the Symposium is open to international scholars across different disciplines (for example, sociology, anthropology, history, political science, and economics). We welcome all proposals for presentation in the social scientific study of religion. We especially welcome proposals about religious identities, local religious groups (congregations), religion and economy, and empirical studies of religion among the Chinese (Chinese societies and diasporas).

Please submit the title and a detailed abstract by April 30, 2007. Notification of inclusion on the program will be made by May 15, 2007. Registration deadline is June 1, 2007. The complete paper is due by July 1, 2007. Total registration fee is $200, which covers hotel and meals and a banquet during the symposium. Presentation may be in English or Chinese, and interpretation between Chinese and English will be provided for the presentations.

In conjunction, the Fourth Summer Institute for the Social Scientific Study of Religion will be held on July 16-27, 2007, at Shanghai University. The Summer Institute participants are scholars and graduate students at Chinese universities, who are to attend the Symposium as well.

Proposals for presentation should be e-mailed to Dr. Fenggang Yang. Requests for additional information may be sent to Dr. Yang through e-mail or by phone: 765-494-2641. For information of previous symposia and summer institutes, you may visit the WebPages at http://www.cla.purdue.edu/sociology/religion/

Fenggang Yang
Purdue University

Asian Pacific American Studies in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Arizona State University

JOB: 12 month Lecturer Position

Asian Pacific American Studies in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Arizona State University invites applications for a 12-month lecturer position on a renewable one-year contract.

Teaching load is 3/3/1/1 on a semester and dual summer session schedule. During the academic year, the lecturer will teach 2 lower division surveys, one upper division course, and supervise APAS certificate internships in the community, including local oral history projects.

Preference for candidates with teaching experience, especially in areas of Asian American and/or Pacific Islander studies and studies of race, ethnicity, and culture. Must possess a masters or graduate emphasis in Asian Pacific American Studies or Ethnic Studies. Starting salary 50K, plus benefits.

More information about the program may be found at http://www.asu.edu/clas/apas

Files that are submitted and complete by April 30, 2007 will be given full consideration. If not filled, applications will be reviewed every two weeks until the search is closed.

Please send letter of application, samples of syllabi including one for an Introduction to APAS, c.v., and three letters of reference to:

Asian Pacific American Studies Lecturer Search
Arizona State University
PO Box 874401
Tempe, AZ 85287-4401

Background check required upon hire. EOE/AA.