No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2010
In the past five or six years crisis has settled upon Southeast Asian studies in the United States, and among those close to the field professionally it is common to blame the Vietnam conflict and related post-war mentality, the so-called ‘Vietnam syndrome’, for this unhappy circumstance. Thegeneral atmosphere in the United States at the present time makes it difficult to conclude otherwise. We live, on theonehand, ina time of forgetting, when small-town mayors remark, ‘Vietnam? I can't think of anything that concerns me less,’ and profes-sors speak bookishly butnota great deal more eloquently of ‘premeditated amnesia.’ On the other hand, we also come into daily contact with what in large part arethelong-term results of ourVietnam involvement: a highly inflationary economy, confusion in foreign affairs, lingering social and political malaise, and a controversial refugee policy. Little wonder that the vast majority of Americans, for whom the words ‘Southeast Asia’ have come to mean simply Vietnam and possibly Cambodia, prefer to ignore the entire region as much as possible and fortherest seek solace ina feweasy myths and characterizations.
1 U.S. News and World Report, April 28, 1980, p. 34.
2 Woodside, Alexander B., ‘Premeditated Amnesia: American Attitudes Toward History’, The Nation, December 13, 1975, pp. 614–618.Google Scholar
3 Witness the common characterization of the Vietnamese as megalomaniacal, savage, and militaristic, and the building of a policy stance largely on such a profile. See, for example, Ball's, George W. opinion piece in The Washington Post, November 6, 1979.Google Scholar
4 The principal studies are: Heine-Geldern, Robert, A Survey of Studies of SoutheastAsia at American Universitiesand Colleges (New York: East Indies Institute, 1943);Google ScholarMcT, George. Kahin, , Teaching and Research Relatingto Southeast Asia in American Colleges and Universities (Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program, 1952);Google ScholarDohrenwend, Barbara S., Courses Related to Southeast Asia in AmericanCollegesand Universities (Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program, 1957);Google ScholarTilman, Robert O. and Brewer, G.D., Southeast Asia Speciaiists of the World: A Profile and Analysis (New Haven: Yale University Council on Southeast Asian Studies, 1968),Google ScholarLambert, Richard D. - (ed.), Language and Area Studies Review (Philadelphia: Academy of Political and Social Science, 1973);Google ScholarMaryanov, Gerald S., The Condition of Southeast Asian Studies in the United States: 1972 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Center for Southeast Asian Studies, 1974); and David L. Szanton, ‘Towards an Intellectual History of Southeast Asian Studies in the United States,’ paper presented at the Kota Kinabalu Conference on Southeast Asian Studies, 1977, and published in French in ASEMI, IX, 1–2 (1978), pp. 3–20. Unless cited otherwise, all illustrative data is drawn from these sources, sometimes combining materials from several at a timeGoogle Scholar.
5 William R. Hoff in a review in Journal of Asian Studies, XXXIX, 1 (November, 1979), p. 217.
6 Maryanov, , Condition, p. 44.Google Scholar
7 Directory of SoutheastAsian Studies Centers in the United States, 1971–1972 (Ann Arbor: Southeast Asia Regional Council, Association for Asian Studies, 1971).Google Scholar
8 Lest I be accused of chauvinism, see his latest work: Negara; TheTheater State in Nineteenth Century Bali (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980).Google Scholar
9 On this point see Emmerson, Donald K., ‘Issues in Southeast Asian History: Room for Interpretation’, Journal for Asian Studies, XL, 1 (November, 1980), pp. 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 A useful review, with appropiate graphs and other materials, is included in Berryman, Sue E., et. al., Foreign Languageand International Studies Specialists: The Marketplace and National Policy (Santa Monica: Rand Corporation for the National Endowment for the Humanities, 1979).Google Scholar
11 Ohio University's Southeast Asia Studies Program was established in 1969, making it the youngest such center in the United States. All initial impetus and funding came from within the university.
12 Papers from early conferences appeared in mimeographed form, by courtesy of the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin. Two later conference results were published and others are in preparation. Bruner, E.M. and Becker, J.O. (eds.), Art, Ritual, and Society in IndonesiaGoogle Scholar and Davis, Gloria (ed.), What is Modern Indonesia? both published by the Ohio University Center for International Studies in 1979.Google Scholar
13 Social Sciences Research Council, Annual Report, 1979–2980 (New York: SSRC, 1980), pp. 122–125.Google Scholar
14 Strength Through Wisdom; A Critique of U.S. Capabilityand President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies: Background Papersand Studies both published by the U.S. Government Printing Office in 1979.Google Scholar
15 Brod, Richard I. (ed.), Language Study for the 1980s (New York: Modern Language Association, 1980), pp. 38–77.Google Scholar
16 Gayle Ness, et. al. ‘The National Need: Southeast Asian Languages and Area Expertise,’ draft for limited circulation, 1980.