⭐️五月是美國亞太裔傳統月!美國亞太裔外交官在美國國務院扮演重要的角色,在AIT的運作上更是如此!在整個五月份,我們將為各位介紹AIT亞太裔官員的重要貢獻。今天要和大家介紹的是AIT經濟組副組長邵靄帝(Arati Shroff)的故事。
✨印度裔美國人是美國第二大亞裔族群,長久以來為美國開闢新的傳統和發展途徑。我父母是在印度獨立運動時期出生於印度,隨後於1970年代移民美國,攻讀更高的學位並尋找嶄新的機會。父母在美國拉拔我們長大時,就常常灌輸我們seva的觀念 (梵語中的無私的服務),提醒我們時時幫助需要幫助的人,並為我們周遭的社群做出貢獻。
除了在美國慶祝印度新年排燈節 (Diwali) 及荷麗節 (Holi) 之外,我們也懷著seva的精神,在美國傳統節慶感恩節及聖誕節時,在當地遊民收容所、糧食補助庇護所及養老院擔任志工,希望能為沒有家人朋友在身邊的人們帶來溫暖。這份seva及服務他人的精神深深影響著我,這也是我隨後加入美國國務院並派駐海外擔任外交官的原因之一。
這幀照片攝於華府美國國務院的班傑明富蘭克林外交禮賓室,13年前我的家人一起來參加我的外交官宣誓就職典禮。我很高興有愈來愈多亞裔美國人加入公共服務的行列,代表並維護美國的民主理想和價值。現任美國副總統賀錦麗即是一位開路先鋒,讓其他亞裔美國人能跟隨她的腳步向前邁進。— AIT經濟組副組長邵靄帝(照片右二)
⭐️It’s Asian-American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month! AAPI diplomats are a vital part of the State Department, and especially our AIT operation! All month, we look forward to featuring the important contributions of our AAPI colleagues. Today we are sharing AIT Economic Deputy Chief Arati Shroff’s story with you.
✨Indian Americans are the second largest group of Asian Americans in the United States and have a rich history of forging new paths and traditions in America. My parents were born in India during the time of India’s independence movement and immigrated to the U.S. in the 1970s to pursue higher education and new opportunities. As they raised my siblings and me in America, my parents also instilled in us a sense of “seva,” (or “selfless service” in Sanskrit) to remind us to always help others in need and build and contribute to communities around us.
Alongside celebrating Indian holidays of Diwali and Holi in America, we also embraced the spirit of “seva” and volunteerism during traditional American celebrations of Thanksgiving and Christmas by volunteering at local homeless and food shelters and retirement homes to cheer up those missing their own families and loved ones. This sense of “seva” and service to others left a deep impression on me and is one of the reasons why I joined the U.S. Foreign Service to become a diplomat overseas.
This photo of my family is from my official swearing-in ceremony at the State Department’s Benjamin Franklin reception room in Washington, DC thirteen years ago. I am excited that Asian Americans are increasingly joining careers in public service to represent and preserve American democratic ideals and values. Current U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris has certainly blazed a trail for others Asian Americans to follow. — AIT Economic Deputy Chief Arati Shroff (the second one from the right-hand side)
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「american indian movement」的推薦目錄:
- 關於american indian movement 在 美國在台協會 AIT Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於american indian movement 在 EZ Talk Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於american indian movement 在 肯腦濕的人生相談室 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於american indian movement 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於american indian movement 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於american indian movement 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於american indian movement 在 American Indian Movement Interpretive Center - Facebook 的評價
american indian movement 在 EZ Talk Facebook 的最佳解答
#EZTALK #你不知道的美國大小事
#redskin #football
🏈 The Washington Redskins
美國平權爭議燒向🔥美式足球:華盛頓紅皮隊隊名爭議
在進入文章之前,先來看幾個單字~✍
1. NFL「美式足球聯盟」:National Football League,是世界最大的職業美式足球聯盟,Super Bowl「超級盃」則是NFL的年度冠軍賽,一般在每年1月最後一個或2月第一個禮拜天舉行,當天也稱為Super Bowl Sunday,觀看超級盃足球賽可以說是全美運動。
2. criticism「批評」:當名詞,動詞為criticize
3. activist「社運人士」
4. settler「殖民者,開拓者」
5. negative「負面的」
6. stereotype「刻板印象」
7. offensive「冒犯的,歧視的」
8. poll「民意調查」
9. call on「呼籲,訴求」
10. merchandise「商品」
--
If you’re a fan of American football, you’re sure to be familiar with the Washington Redskins. Since joining the NFL in the early 1930s, the Redskins have won two NFL Championships and three Super Bowls. Only five teams have appeared in more Super Bowls than the Redskins—the New England Patriots, Dallas Cowboys, Pittsburgh Steelers, Denver Broncos and San Francisco 49ers.
如果你是美式足球迷,想必對華盛頓紅皮隊不陌生。從1930年代初期加入美國職業美式足球聯盟NFL以來,紅皮隊已經拿下兩次NFL冠軍以及三次超級盃冠軍。目前只有五個球隊出現在超級盃的次數能超過紅皮隊──新英格蘭愛國者隊、達拉斯牛仔隊、匹茲堡鋼人隊、丹佛野馬隊,以及舊金山49人隊。
In recent years, however, the Redskins have come under increasing criticism. Although the Redskins’ last Super Bowl appearance was in 1992, this criticism isn’t about their performance on the field, but rather their name.
不過最近幾年,紅皮隊卻受到越來越多的批評聲浪。即使紅皮隊最近一次現身在超級盃已經是1992年的事情了,不過這個批評其實跟他們球場上的表現無關,而是跟他們的隊名有關。
Where does the term “redskin” come from? In the 18th century, French settlers in the Mississippi River Valley translated a word used by local Indians to refer to themselves into peau rouge. This was later translated into English as redskin, a term that was used for many years with no negative meaning, even by Indians themselves. But during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, American Indian activists began to feel that words like redskin promoted negative stereotypes about Native Americans.
「紅皮膚redskin」這個詞是怎麼來的?十八世紀移居到密西西比河流域的法國人,將當地印地安人用來自稱的字翻成peau rouge,這個法文詞後來翻成英文redskin「紅皮膚」,當時這個字並沒有任何負面含意,也這樣相安無事用了許多年,連印地安人自己也在用。不過,到一九六〇年代人權運動時期,美國印第安社運人士開始覺得,這個字會引起大家對美國原住民的負面刻板印象。
Today, most dictionaries define redskin as an offensive term, but it’s not that simple. A number of polls have shown that the majority of football fans, the general public, and even American Indians, don’t find the word redskin offensive. And Redskins owner Dan Snyder has said the name was chosen back in 1933 to honor Native Americans, including the head coach—who was part Sioux—and four of the team’s players.
如今,多數字典都將redskin這個字定義成歧視字眼,不過事情可沒這麼簡單。一連串針對美式足球觀眾、一般大眾、甚至對美國印地安人所做的民意調查顯示,他們並不覺得redskin這個字有歧視意味。而紅皮隊老闆丹施耐德也說了,這個隊名是他們在1933年為了表彰隊上的美國原住民隊員而選定的,包含身為蘇族的總教練以及其4名球員。
But following the police killing of George Floyd, a group of investors wrote letters to Redskins sponsors like FedEx, Nike and PepsiCo urging them to put pressure on the team to change its name. On July 2, FedEx publically called on the team to change its name, and Nike removed all Redskins merchandise from its website. The next day, the team announced that it would be reviewing its name, and on July 13 made an official statement that they would retire the Redskins name and logo.
然而,發生佛洛依德之死事件之後,一群投資人寫信給FedEx、Nike、百事可樂等紅皮隊的贊助商,希望他們對紅皮隊施加壓力更改隊名。7月2日,FedEx公開呼籲紅皮隊改名,Nike則是撤下官網上所有有紅皮隊隊徽的產品。隔日紅皮隊宣布會審慎檢討隊名,並在7月13日做出官方說明,表示他們會讓紅皮隊這個名字與隊徽走入歷史。
--
🔔 按下「搶先看」,每週五【美國大小事】,由 Judd 編審分享最即時美國新鮮事!想知道更多美國文化,請看 👉 http://bit.ly/EZTalk嚴選
american indian movement 在 肯腦濕的人生相談室 Facebook 的精選貼文
經濟學人的封面,圖片是龍的嘴咬向香港,爪子伸向台灣
中國在香港用恐懼來統治
全世界應該感到擔憂
https://www.economist.com/…/china-has-launched-rule-by-fear…
Dragon strike
China has launched rule by fear in Hong Kong
The rest of the world should worry, too
The people of Hong Kong want two things: to choose how they are governed, and to be subject to the rule of law. The Chinese Communist Party finds both ideas so frightening that many expected it to send troops to crush last year’s vast protests in Hong Kong. Instead, it bided its time. Now, with the world distracted by covid-19 and mass protests difficult because of social distancing, it has chosen a quieter way to show who’s boss. That threatens a broader reckoning with the world—and not just over Hong Kong, but also over the South China Sea and Taiwan.
On May 21st China declared, in effect, that Hong Kongers deemed to pose a threat to the party will become subject to the party’s wrath. A new security law, written in Beijing, will create still-to-be defined crimes of subversion and secession, terms used elsewhere in China to lock up dissidents, including Uighurs and Tibetans. Hong Kong will have no say in drafting the law, which will let China station its secret police there. The message is clear. Rule by fear is about to begin.
This is the most flagrant violation yet of the principle of “one country, two systems”. When the British colony was handed back to China in 1997, China agreed that Hong Kong would enjoy a “high degree of autonomy”, including impartial courts and free speech. Many Hong Kongers are outraged (see article). Some investors are scared, too. The territory’s stockmarket fell by 5.6% on May 22nd, its biggest drop in five years. Hong Kong is a global commercial hub not only because it is situated next to the Chinese mainland, but also because it enjoys the rule of law. Business disputes are settled impartially, by rules that are known in advance. If China’s unaccountable enforcers are free to impose the party’s whims in Hong Kong, it will be a less attractive place for global firms to operate.
China’s move also has implications far beyond Hong Kong. “One country, two systems” was supposed to be a model for Taiwan, a democratic island of 24m that China also sees as its own. The aim was to show that reunification with the motherland need not mean losing one’s liberty. Under President Xi Jinping, China seems to have tired of this charade. Increasingly, it is making bare-knuckle threats instead. The re-election in January of a China-sceptic Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, will have convinced China’s rulers that the chances of a peaceful reunification are vanishingly small. On May 22nd, at the opening of China’s rubber-stamp parliament, the prime minister, Li Keqiang, ominously cut the word “peaceful” from his ritual reference to reunification. China has stepped up war games around Taiwan and its nationalists have been braying online for an invasion.
China is at odds with other countries, too. In its building of island fortresses in the South China Sea, it ignores both international law and the claims of smaller neighbours. This week hundreds, perhaps thousands of Chinese troops crossed China’s disputed border with India in the Himalayas. Minor scuffles along this frontier are common, but the latest incursion came as a state-owned Chinese paper asserted new claims to land that its nuclear-armed neighbour deems Indian (see article). And, as a sombre backdrop to all this, relations with the United States are worse than they have been in decades, poisoning everything from trade and investment to scientific collaboration.
However much all the regional muscle-flexing appals the world, it makes sense to the Chinese Communist Party. In Hong Kong the party wants to stop a “colour revolution”, which it thinks could bring democrats to power there despite China’s best efforts to rig the system. If eroding Hong Kong’s freedoms causes economic damage, so be it, party bigwigs reason. The territory is still an important place for Chinese firms to raise international capital, especially since the Sino-American feud makes it harder and riskier for them to do so in New York. But Hong Kong’s gdp is equivalent to only 3% of mainland China’s now, down from more than 18% in 1997, because the mainland’s economy has grown 15-fold since then. China’s rulers assume that multinational firms and banks will keep a base in Hong Kong, simply to be near the vast Chinese market. They are probably right.
The simple picture that President Donald Trump paints of America and China locked in confrontation suits China’s rulers well. The party thinks that the balance of power is shifting in China’s favour. Mr Trump’s insults feed Chinese nationalist anger, which the party is delighted to exploit—just as it does any tensions between America and its allies. It portrays the democracy movement in Hong Kong as an American plot. That is absurd, but it helps explain many mainlanders’ scorn for Hong Kong’s protesters.
The rest of the world should stand up to China’s bullying. On the Sino-Indian border, the two sides should talk more to avoid miscalculations, as their leaders promised to in 2018. China should realise that, if it tries the tactics it has used in the South China Sea, building structures on disputed ground and daring others to push back, it will be viewed with greater distrust by all its neighbours.
In the case of Taiwan China faces a powerful deterrent: a suggestion in American law that America might come to Taiwan’s aid were the island to be attacked. There is a growing risk that a cocksure China may decide to put that to the test. America should make clear that doing so would be extremely dangerous. America’s allies should echo that, loudly.
Hong Kong’s options are bleaker. The Hong Kong Policy Act requires America to certify annually that the territory should in trade and other matters be treated as separate from China. This week the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, declared that “facts on the ground” show Hong Kong is no longer autonomous. This allows America to slap tariffs on the territory’s exports, as it already does to those from the mainland. That is a powerful weapon, but the scope for miscalculation is vast, potentially harming Hong Kongers and driving out global firms and banks. It would be better, as the law also proposes, to impose sanctions on officials who abuse human rights in Hong Kong. Also, Britain should grant full residency rights to the hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers who hold a kind of second-class British passport—much as Ms Tsai this week opened Taiwan’s door to Hong Kong citizens. None of this will stop China from imposing its will on Hong Kong. The party’s interests always trump the people’s. ■
american indian movement 在 American Indian Movement Interpretive Center - Facebook 的美食出口停車場
The American Indian Movement Interpretive Center holds a legacy of millions of historical records, culture captured on media, radio archives, ... ... <看更多>