珍珠奶茶已經不只是臺灣各地手搖店必備品項,而成為國際知名、儼然是代表臺灣文化的飲品。我們也不難注意到,在其他國家,珍珠奶茶成為日常消費文化一部分的在地化過程中,發展出許多反應當地社會文化特色的創意料理方式。珍珠奶茶全球化現象的視角,也提供我們從中進一步看見物與文化認同動態交織過程。讓我們藉由 端傳媒 記者 張妍 的這篇報導,了解珍珠奶茶在美國興起與普及的過程,以及這項飲品對於亞裔美國人思考認同的不同意涵。
--------
在芬蘭赫爾辛基大學研究珍珠奶茶全球化的學者張馨瑋對端傳媒說,珍珠奶茶在世界上遍地開花與台灣的資本和移民密不可分。「有一批台灣移民,最初跟著資本的走向,走到了香港和大陸,用加盟等形式開奶茶店,教育出第一批消費者,並為大陸後來誕生本土奶茶品牌提供靈感。這些消費者出國之後,依然將奶茶當作他們的日常消費選項,帶動了全球市場的興旺。」
「另外一批台灣移民,在上世紀60年代美國移民政策更開放之後來到美國,從事餐飲謀生。珍珠奶茶曾經是台菜小吃店裏的『隱藏菜單』,只有熟客才會點——就是台灣移民二代小時候喝奶茶的樣子。」張馨瑋補充,「台二代介紹了自己的同學、朋友喝,越傳越廣。他們也開始借奶茶思考自己的身份,創造關於奶茶的歌、MV。這和2000年左右亞裔文化向北美流動一樣,包括Kpop、壽司、日本拉麵,都成為潮流文化。」
美國西海岸的珍珠奶茶被叫做「Boba Tea」,諧音台灣俗語「波霸」,因加州是台灣移民最初聚居的地方,恰印證了張馨瑋指出的路徑之一。在東海岸紐約、波士頓等地,由連鎖品牌做起來的珍珠奶茶叫做「Bubble Tea」,「bubble」源自手搖杯產生的泡沫。
...
珍珠奶茶沒有亞裔移民的苦痛形象,而是時髦的、中產式的消費品,吸引了不同背景的亞裔移民向它靠攏。「所謂亞裔美國人(Asian American)包括55個國家移民過來的人,最高收入和最低收入的族群都有。有錢人家的華人小孩,和過來打工的紐約非法移民的小孩,他們的共鳴,變成珍珠奶茶,變成在臉書裏大家都按讚的東西。不牽扯任何政治,不牽扯社會階層。」周成蔭說。
...
張馨瑋在歐洲做調研時發現,歐洲消費者潛意識裏已將珍珠奶茶看作是「北美的」,「人們雖隱約知道這是亞裔飲料,但他們覺得這是美國的流行產品」。一方面因珍奶的形象通過Instagram、TikTok等社交軟件在英文世界傳播,被全球受眾看到;另一方面,它確實沒有在強調「東方吸引力」。
「如果珍珠奶茶沒有進入美國,沒有成為許多美國年輕人的記憶,我不覺得它能夠全球化的這麼快。」張馨瑋補充。
與此同時,人們製造了一個關於珍珠奶茶的新詞:波霸自由主義(Boba Liberalism)。這個詞是負面的,是對某一種喝著珍奶長大的亞裔年輕人的貶低。這些年輕人會用潮流文化符號來定義自己的身份,但在其他地方又尋求白人主流文化的接納,對於真正的亞裔議題,缺乏清晰的政治立場。
(引用自https://theinitium.com/article/20210922-international-us-taiwan-milk-tea/)
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過12萬的網紅王炳忠,也在其Youtube影片中提到,🔥支付寶打賞:13581883245 🔥王炳忠今日頭條:搜索「王炳忠台灣」 🔥王炳忠臉書粉專:https://www.facebook.com/bingzhong.wang ♦♦♦ The Real Threat to the US is the loss of self-confidence ─...
「american liberalism」的推薦目錄:
american liberalism 在 李怡 Facebook 的最讚貼文
Conservatives and Liberals | Lee Yee
In the 1960s and 1970s, the American Civil Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, and the European movement were in the rage. At that time I was still young, and saw that in Western ideologies there were the liberals and the radicals. The middle-aged and older people were mostly liberals, and young people were mostly radicals. Nobody called themselves conservative at that time. It was as if there was a consensus that society should reform, that being conservative means not progressive. It was not until 1979 and 1981 when Prime Minister Mrs. Margaret Thatcher and U.S. President Reagan came to power and implemented conservative policies, succeeded, before the British and American politics went back to being traditional. However, the yearning for equality brought about by these civil movements has since become the mainstream driving ideology and consciousness in Western academics and media.
In the United States' two parties, the Republicans are generally considered conservatives, and the Democrats are liberals. Of course, there is mutual influence and infiltration into each and among each other. There are no generally accepted standard definitions for liberalism and conservatism, for they reflect socio-ideological trends and political practices of politicians.
Liberalism basically has four pillars: one, it recognizes that there are unavoidable conflicts of interest and beliefs in society; two, distrust of power; three, that people are progressive, and subjectively promotes the progress of human civilization; four, regardless of people’s ideology, identity, race, gender, or sexual orientation, they should be respected and accepted for their diversity, minorities are tolerated, and equality is pursued.
Conservatism is by no means an antonym to the pursuit of freedom. Both Mrs. Thatcher and Reagan are the most resolute guardians of freedom; conservatism does not deny power, but emphasizes that power must be monitored, checked and balanced.
In terms of welfare policies, liberalism pursues equality, protects minority rights, protects disadvantaged groups, and promotes and enhances social welfare. Since the increase in welfare would come from government spending, therefore there have to be tax increases. It is not like conservatism disregard the disadvantaged groups, but rather, it believes that there can be no true equality except before God and a fair court. It must first recognize the various differences and groups in people, and the pursuit of equality regardless of differences will only create new inequalities. If society eventually moves towards the equal distribution in socialism, people will move towards the path of slavery. Conservatism does not oppose welfare, but rather, it believes that charitable organizations, churches, civic organizations, or foundations should help the weak and helpless in society. The government ought to provide only policy assistance from the side, because if the government is to lead welfare, it will lead to excessive governance and intervention, and the price to pay will be an increase in taxation, leading to inflation. One of the founding spirits of the United States is that everyone is self-reliant. For those with the ability to make their own living to rely on government welfare for a prolonged period will actually make people live a life without self-esteem.
Liberalism seeks equal distribution from anti-discrimination, anti-difference, and equal opportunity, which is a road towards socialism. Conservatism does not seek rapid progress,; it believes that customs, conventions, and continuity should be followed. Ancient customs allow people to live together in harmony; those who destroy customs can destroy beyond what they want to destroy. The Cultural Revolution revolutionized the fate of culture. Conservatives also do not oppose social progress, but progress will not fall from the sky. If certain parts of society are progressing, other parts usually are declining. A healthy society must be both “enduring” and “developing”. For society to sustain endurance for a long time, there must be lasting faith. If that cannot last, the root source of righteousness will collapse.
In order not to interfere with people’s freedom, conservatism advocates small government, deregulation, tax reduction, in an attempt to create an environment conducive to the operation of private enterprises. Before Reagan was elected, both society and the economy were in difficult situations. The Americans hoped that Reagan could save the economy when he came to power, but in his inauguration speech, he said, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Loosening up, reducing taxes, and adopting inaction, Reagan rejuvenated the U.S. economy.
Despite advocating for small governments, successive Republican governments, from Reagan to Bush to Trump, have increased military spending and maintained a strong military power; the Democratic Party’s Obama, on the other hand, wanted to be tolerant of totalitarian countries and cut military spending. Reagan developed a space war plan, and Trump developed the space army, because they believe that neither democracy or totalitarianism is people’s choice between different systems, but between people’s choice or the system imposed upon them by those in power; it is the difference between righteousness and evil, no middle ground, no moral relativism. Goodness must become the strong one, or else evil fascism will encroach, control, and ultimately defeat you.
american liberalism 在 Apple Daily - English Edition Facebook 的最佳解答
#Opinion by Lee Yee 李怡|"There are no generally accepted standard definitions for liberalism and conservatism, for they reflect socio-ideological trends and political practices of politicians."
Read more: https://bit.ly/2Eiq5bJ
"自由主義和保守主義,沒有公認的標準解釋。反映的是社會思潮,和從政者的政治實踐。"
____________
📱Download the app:
http://onelink.to/appledailyapp
📰 Latest news:
http://appledaily.com/engnews/
🐤 Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/appledaily_hk
💪🏻 Subscribe and show your support:
https://bit.ly/2ZYKpHP
#AppleDailyENG
american liberalism 在 王炳忠 Youtube 的精選貼文
🔥支付寶打賞:13581883245
🔥王炳忠今日頭條:搜索「王炳忠台灣」
🔥王炳忠臉書粉專:https://www.facebook.com/bingzhong.wang
♦♦♦
The Real Threat to the US is the loss of self-confidence
──An Open Letter to Mr. Secretary Mike Pompeo
My name is Wang Ping-Chung, the spokesperson for the New Party, Taiwan’s political party. During the ongoing pandemic of the Covid-19, the enemy of all human beings, including the American people and Chinese people, is definitely the corona virus. However, as Secretary of State of the United States, you seem to consider China instead of the virus to be your enemy. It lets you do little in pandemic prevention but much in blaming the WHO and China. You have even made great efforts to politicalize the issue of public health in order to attack China, which reflects the United States’ prevailing concept of so-called China’s threat. Nevertheless, the real threat to the US is not China but the loss of self-confidence indeed.
As President Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Only thing we have to fear is the fear itself.” The threat you have to fear today is not other peoples but yourselves. Even though you have done your best to shift blames on the WHO and China, the fact is already clear of the US domestic misdiagnosed cases, which had been seen as H1N1 but in fact corona virus since last autumn. It is also your fault in underestimating the severity of the epidemic while China sacrificed itself to let the world have more preparation time. Accordingly, the Covid-19 has killed more than fifty thousand people in America. As China’s population is four times larger than the US, it is quite shocking that America’s death toll due to the Covid-19 has been above China’s.
I feel so sorry for the suffering of your people, yet it is never too late to mend. However, not only did you palm off the responsibility on others, but you also undermined international solidarity against the pandemic. Moreover, you even try to deny the status of the WHO as the coordinator for universal combat against diseases, which in some way means challenging the global institutions under the governance of the United Nations. It is so unbelievable that the United States, viewing itself as the world leader above half a century, is tending to destroy the world order recognized by the international society. The very reason I can think of is the loss of America’s self-confidence. It is the threat to both the US and the whole world.
For Liberalists in the United States, China has been believed either an opponent or a violator to international institutions. As far as it’s concerned, there had been debates whether to keep containing China economically and militarily or engaging it institutionally. Both were resulted from America’s confidence in its leadership. Consequently, the confidence gradually changed into arrogance, luring the United States into aggressions upon other countries as the global superpower without permission from the UN Security Council. It made America exhausted at last. Therefore, the United States has become an isolationist, and even a betrayer to the global institutions they established before. On the contrary, China seems more like a protector of the world order.
On the other hand, for Realists, the predominant thinkers in international politics, China has been seen as the primary rival to America. As they estimate there will be threat if any other regional hegemony occurs, the nation’s fear becomes beyond what its capability can hold. To some extent, this is the real crisis to your people. In fact, different from western nations developing themselves by oppressing and exploiting others, the Chinese people have risen out of poverty at the cost of blood, sweat, and tears of our own. I would like to remind you of Franklin Roosevelt’s self-evident words that nothing to fear but fear itself. The only threat you should conquer is the threat in your mind.
As Henry Kissinger has argued, relations between China and the United States need not – and should not – become a zero-sum game. He also suggested that China and America build a Pacific community with each other. Thinking in the same way, Chinese President Xi also claimed that the vast Pacific Ocean has enough space for the two large countries of China and the United States. Furthermore, I believe the world is large enough to embrace different political and social systems. As western liberalism in recent years has met difficulties in over-consumption and government failure, we should be more open-minded to the superiority of Chinese governance in some fields, especially the high efficiency in defeating the epidemic. The United States should also be more self-confident to have China rising under the global governance of international institutions, sharing with mutual benefits instead of destroying each other. Without doubt, only by doing so can the United States overcome the real threat and bring the world peace and prosperity, the real universal values for all mankind.
american liberalism 在 Liberal Hypocrisy is Fueling American Inequality. Here's How. 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>