The Christian Science Monitor has a very interesting story about about an emerging academic and cultural controversy regarding Asian Indian history -- nationalist (some would even call right wing) Hindu groups are trying to literally rewrite textbooks books to more positively reflect on Indian history and cultural achievements:

The foes - who include established historians and Hindu nationalist revisionists - are familiar to each other in India. But America may increasingly become their new battlefield as other US states follow California in rewriting their own textbooks to bone up on Asian history.

At stake, say scholars who include some of the most elite historians on India, may be a truthful picture of one of the world’s emerging powers - one arrived at by academic standards of proof rather than assertions of national or religious pride. . . . Here in India, Hindu nationalists have pushed forcefully for revisionism after what they see as centuries of cultural domination by the British Raj and Muslim Mogul Empire. . . .

This year, as California’s Board of Education commissioned and put up for review textbooks to be used in its 6th-grade classrooms, these two groups came forward with demands for substantial changes. . . . The hottest debate centered on when Indian civilization began, and by whom.

The article goes on to describe that the nationalist Hindu groups want to change textbooks to note that new research suggests that Hinduism (and the foundation of Indian history) actually originated within India, rather than from Aryan groups who migrated into India., although this theory has not been widely accepted by historians.

I’m certainly not an expert on Indian history, but this story should serve as a reminder that “history” is not a static phenomenon. In other words, it is not simply a collection of “facts” that stand by themselves for all eternity. Instead, as this story illustrates, “history” is constantly being modified, renegotiated, and fought over as a tool for political purposes.

And as the saying goes, “The victors get to write history.”

Kiplinger Magazine has released its annual list of best values in public U.S. universities and colleges. For the fifth straight year, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill tops the list followed by (2) University of Florida; (3) University of Virginia; (4) College of William and Mary; (5) New College of Florida; (6) University of Georgia; (7) State University of NY at Geneseo; (8) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; (9) State University of NY at Binghamton; and (10) University of Washington.

Where does my current employer, the University of MA, Amherst rank? How about #81. For comparison, my undergraduate alma mater, the University of CA, Irvine ranks #70 and my graduate alma mater, the University at Albany, State University of NY, ranks #46.

Just so you know, Kiplinger’s rankings differ from those of U.S. News and World Report, who rank public colleges on pure academic excellence, rather than value. On their list of top public universities, UMass Amherst is #50 with U.C. Berkeley, Univ. of VA, U.C.L.A., Univ. of MI, UNC Chapel Hill, U.C. San Diego, GA Institute of Technology, U.C. Irvine, Univ. of IL at Champagne-Urbana, and U.C. Santa Barbara constituting the top 10 public schools.

Well, fellow Minutemen (and women), maybe we’ll place higher next year (don’t we say that every year?) . . .

The New York Times has an article about the emergence of entrepreneurship among Vietnamese Americans, perhaps best symbolized by the opening of the first two banks owned by Vietnamese Americans in the U.S., both of which are located in Little Saigon, Orange County, CA:

[Until recently] the banking needs of the immigrant companies were served by major institutions, like the Bank of America and Wells Fargo, or by Chinese and Korean banks. But now, two new banks with investors and owners from the Vietnamese community have opened, indicating the rising prosperity of Vietnamese businesses in America and growing economic connections with a vibrant entrepreneurial sector back in Vietnam.

First Vietnamese American Bank raised more than $11 million in capital and opened in May. More than pride is at stake for ethnic groups in having banks of their own, said John J. Kennedy, president of the other new institution, Saigon National Bank, which opened in November. . . . Mr. Kennedy was hired to get Saigon National going by its founding investors, led by Kiem D. Nguyen, owner of one of the largest supermarkets in Little Saigon.

The article goes on to describe several other examples of Vietnamese American entrepreneurs who have opened businesses that have the ability to operate transnationally, in the U.S. and Viet Nam. In addition to banks that specialize in handling remittances (immigrants sending money back to family and relatives in Viet Nam), they include travel agencies, clothing and apparel import/export, software development and computer engineering, telecommunications, food processing, etc.

This is a positive development for Vietnamese Americans and American society in general in a lot of ways. Clearly the most obvious benefit is that as Vietnamese American entrepreneurship burgeons and businesses such as these prosper, it helps the American economy and the Vietnamese American economy.

But one indirect benefit that’s likely to result is that as more Vietnamese Americans do businesses with the government of Viet Nam, hopefully old tensions and hostilities between the two sides will gradually fade into the background. Instead, the spirit of commerce and capitalism will be paramount, which will hopefully benefit the Vietnamese American entrepreneurs but also improve the standard of living among the citizens of Viet Nam.

This entrepreneurial phenomenon is still in its infancy of course, but it definitely shows potential. Who would have thought that rather than dividing people up, capitalism is poised to bring people closer together in this case?

Almost all of you are probably familiar with the practice of file-sharing over the Internet, using software that allows users to share music, photos, videos, and/or computer programs. Perhaps many of you have done or are still doing that yourself. If so, you should also know that when the material being shared is copyrighted, it is considered an illegal activity.

You might also be aware that to crack down on and discourage this practice, the music recording industry has sued thousands of people, most of whom are college students, for sharing files over the Internet. In response, students being sued are using a new strategy to try to recover the damages they had to pay -- suing the software companies that provided the means for them to share the files.

In particular, as the Boston Globe reports, 42 UMass Amherst students are suing another UMass Amherst student, Wayne Chang, alleging that Mr. Chang and his i2hub file sharing software tricked and misled them into thinking that file sharing was legal:

Chang said he had no idea students would use his system for illegal activity. But the UMass-Amherst students say i2hub’s advertising misled them into believing that the file swapping was legal. They want Chang’s defunct service to pay the damages. . . .

Even though Napster [a company Chang used to work for] and other file-swapping services have mainly been used for illegal exchanges of copyrighted software, movies, and music, Chang insisted that i2hub was created just to help students communicate with one another. “Our website didn’t even have the words music or movies on there,” he said. . . .

[An attorney representing the 42 students] said that i2hub should pay the settlement due to its “contributory infringement” of the companies’ copyrights, as well as its “unfair or deceptive practices.” Chang’s attorney, Charles Baker, scoffs at [that] argument. “How can a user turn around and sue for this?” said Baker. “They’re the ones who decided to commit copyright infringement.”

The article mentions that last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that operators of file-swapping services can be sued if there is evidence that they encourage users to commit illegal acts. On the one hand, as a former employee of Napster, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Chang is genuine when he claims that in developing his i2hub software that he had no idea users would use it to illegally share copyrighted material.

On the other hand, I also find it hard to believe that the 42 students suing Mr. Chang also did not know that sharing copyrighted songs was illegal, especially after the publicity that these lawsuits that the recording industry were bringing became more well-known. Could this be another example of the current generation of students shying away from accountability and responsibility over their own actions?

In other words, I think both sides are at to some degree at fault here -- Mr. Chang for developing the software that he should have known (if he did not know already given his experience with Napster) was going to put himself at risk for legal action, although I believe that he did not directly encourage users to illegally trade copyrighted files.

But most of all, I think the students are largely to blame for committing the illegal acts in the first place. It’s one thing to believe that sharing MP3s should be legal and that it doesn’t really hurt anybody. But it’s something else to realizing (or should have realized) that the recording industry is very serious about suing students who do exactly what they were caught doing.

It’s like that old adage -- if you’re gonna commit the crime, you’d better be prepared to do the time. That’s a point of personal accountability and responsibility that everybody should understand, regardless of what generation they are or what technologies they grew up with.

PC World Magazine reports that a the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 was recently signed into law that would make it a crime to “intentionally annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person“:

The broad language of the law has some online advocates concerned that it could be used to censure the expression of objectionable opinion simply because those opinions annoy someone, but its backers say that is not the case. “This is about cyberstalking, not free speech,” says [a spokesperson for] for the act’s author, Representative Jim McDermott (D-Washington).

“You may write something and post it online and I may find it annoying, but so what? This isn’t what this is about. This is about keeping people, especially women, safe.” Still, Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group that has published a guide to safe anonymous blogging, says there is cause for concern.

“It has this very loose term of ‘intent to annoy’ which encompasses a much greater area of speech than harassment and threat,” Opsahl says.

As you see, free speech advocates fear that the term “annoy” can potentially include otherwise harmless posts that can be used to punish bloggers or message board participants. In this kind of political climate where certain government officials and agencies apparently feel that they have greater leeway for creative interpretations of existing laws, that fear is certainly plausible.

Nonetheless, I see this law as a step in the right direction. Too often, the anonymity of the Internet gives criminals and other people with malicious intent too much protection and allows them to directly threaten and intimidate others (they are often helped by the ease by which they can purchase personal data and information about their victims).

Hopefully this law will swing the pendulum back more toward those at risk of intimidation and threats, and away from the perpetrators.

As part of their feature on emerging trends in corporate outsourcing, BusinessWeek Magazine has one particular article entitled “Angling to be the Next Bangalore” that summarizes how rising wages, a growing shortage of skilled workers, and desires by companies to diversify their outsourcing options are all likely to lead to a decline in India’s share of the total outsourcing pie. With that in mind, several countries are positioning themselves to be viable outsourcing options in the future:

China leads the pack, thanks to its huge human resources and success attracting manufacturing work. Already a force in writing software built into other products, China is now chasing India’s lucrative IT and business services work. Russia, Brazil, and Mexico are likewise piling in, offering costs and skills often on par with India’s, plus advantages such as closer proximity to U.S. and European markets.

Even tiny countries such as Nicaragua, Botswana, and Sri Lanka are trying to grab the brass ring. To lure clients, they’re sending trade missions to outsourcing expos, subsidizing training and office parks, and offering tax breaks. . . . To compete, countries often must improve their telecoms, airports, and even business laws -- moves that pay long-term dividends. Clean, well-paying service jobs boost demand for educated workers, an impetus to improving schools and training. . . .

Egypt is selling itself as a low-cost specialist in European language call centers. Singapore and Dubai say their safety and legal systems give them an edge in handling high-security and business-continuity services. The Philippines, a former U.S. colony, draws on long-standing cultural ties and solid English skills to snare Anglophone call-center work. And Central and South American countries use their Spanish skills to grab call-center contracts for the Hispanic market in the U.S.

You should definitely read the article to get the full story -- it’s very descriptive and easy to digest. I don’t have too much to add here except to say that although India is likely to lose some of its luster as the international king of outsourcing, I think this trend toward greater outsourcing options is a positive development -- in one key aspect. That is, as more countries get outsourced labor, the hostility and anger that many Americans have toward Indians who they accuse of “taking over their jobs” is likely to decline.

In other words, the “blame” will be spread around the world more uniformly, instead of being almost solely concentrated on India, as is the case now. Being the anti-capitalist liberal that I am, I’m still not a big fan of outsourcing in general. But if any good is coming out of these trends, hopefully it will make Americans see that their jobs are being outsourced to plenty of other countries, not just India.

Inside Higher Education has an interesting article about a recent grant submitted by respected historian Marc Stein to the National Endowment for the Humanities. Professor Stein’s grant, seeking to review the Supreme Court’s rulings in the 50s and 60s on gay rights, was judged excellent by peer reviewers but was vetoed by the NEH Director, who is a political appointee under President Bush:

When Stein’s proposal was rejected, he didn’t think much of it at first, but decided to take advantage of an offer in the rejection letter that he could seek copies of the evaluation letters for his project. When he did so, he found that the peer review panel had raved over his ideas. Comments such as “right on target,” “ideal combination of solid research and a topic that has broad appeal” and “seems truly revisionary and significant” appeared in these reviews. Every panelist had ranked the proposal “excellent.”

Stein said he assumed then that many projects had received such high rankings and that he lost out to equally highly judged proposals. But as he gathered more information, he found that while he was rejected, one project in American history that had failed to receive all “excellent” rankings had been approved for support. A recommendation to support his grant had been overturned by the NEH’s council -- a presidentially appointed panel -- and by Bruce Cole, chairman of the NEH and the final arbiter on awards.

Of course, the NEH denies that there is any bias against particular research and that it only judges proposals based on excellence. But if that’s the case, why didn’t Professor Stern’s grant that was rated highest get rejected? Let’s spell it out: P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S. Specifically, anti-gay, anti-liberal politics engineered by conservative political appointees who are frequently seek to strangle “liberal” speech and expression in academia and society at large.

You don’t have to be a Ph.D. to figure that out. I ask again: Fascism -- are we there yet?

The New York Times has an article that describes an emerging phenomenon in many Asian countries, but particularly prominent in Japan -- hikikomori -- or withdrawaling oneself from any social interaction and shutting oneself in one’s house for months or even years on end:

Some hikikomori do occasionally emerge from their rooms for meals with their parents, late-night runs to convenience stores or, in Takeshi’s case, once-a-month trips to buy CD’s. And though female hikikomori exist and may be undercounted, experts estimate that about 80 percent of the hikikomori are male, some as young as 13 or 14 and some who live in their rooms for 15 years or more.

South Korea and Taiwan have reported a scattering of hikikomori, and isolated cases may have always existed in Japan. But only in the last decade and only in Japan has hikikomori become a social phenomenon. Like anorexia, which has been largely limited to Western cultures, hikikomori is a culturebound syndrome that thrives in one particular country during a particular moment in its history.

As the problem has become more widespread in Japan, an industry has sprung up around it. There are support groups for parents, psychologists who specialize in it (including one who counsels shut-ins via the Internet) and several halfway programs like New Start, offering dorms and job training.

For all the attention, though, hikikomori remains confounding. The Japanese public has blamed everything from smothering mothers to absent, overworked fathers, from school bullying to the lackluster economy, from academic pressure to video games.

The article goes on to emphasize the economic factors and pressures to be economically successful that may lead to hikikomori -- how many Japanese feel that their value as a Japanese society is entirely dependent on their academic and job/ salary achievements and how that leads to an overwhelming sense of anxiety, alienation, and/or rejection of such prevailing norms.

The article also stresses that Japanese parents may be a primary contributor to the problem by first putting too much pressure on the child, along with not giving him enough affection and validation, then being too lax in allowing this phenomenon to go unaddressed.

Whatever the causes are, it’s a pretty sad phenomenon. Plus it does not bode well for Japan’s future. The article implies that the causes result from norms and customs that are fundamental embedded into the fabric of Japanese society and that are now clashing with postindustrial and globalized 21st century reality. In other words, don’t be surprised if this hikikomori phenomenon gets worse before it gets better.