"New immigrants" is a term that can be used to refer to the "Mainlanders" who arrived in Taiwan after 1945 in the wake of the Japanese defeat. In fact, this term is more appropriate than "Mainlanders"; after all, Taiwan is a society of immigrants, made up of different ethnic groups and separate waves of immigrants who have coalesced into what is now Taiwanese society.
The immigrants that came in 1945 from various parts of China constituted an armed community, including government, political parties, military, public servants and ordinary people, so that they were necessarily more isolated from society at large, more defensive and xenophobic.
After 50 years of living in Taiwan, these new immigrants have gradually become integrated and can no longer be easily distinguished from other inhabitants. But because their family background, upbringing and education is different from that of immigrants who came to Taiwan prior to 1945, they naturally have a different perspective on history and culture.
This is most evident in different interpretations of the 228 Incident. Some of the new immigrants feel that the incident has nothing to do with them. Despite this, whenever the incident is spoken of, they feel they are being censured.
Others believe that the incident was a revolt against the government and that in order to maintain its authority, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) acted correctly in using military force to suppress the dissidents. They accept the rationalization of the KMT for its actions.
Still others believe that the Taiwanese rejected the new immigrants, and that the government acted as it did to protect these immigrants.
These points of view and the feelings they represent are understandable. But if the new immigrants isolate themselves from the facts of the 228 Incident, they will never overcome the psychological obstacle that this event represents.
One, the incident was a conflict between the rulers and the ruled. After the defeat of the Japanese, the undisciplined and corrupt forces that took over the governance of Taiwan caused people in Taiwan to lose their initial delight and hope for a new future and fall into the depths of despair. Finally they rose up and demanded reform.
The government ignored the voice of the people and sent soldiers to suppress dissent, arresting and executing many Taiwanese. The victims also included new immigrants and Aborigines. Anyone who was perceived as a threat to the government faced arrest and execution.
Two, the 228 Settlement Committee's list of 32 demands were demands that the Taiwanese people originally made under the Japanese colonial regime. Through a deep understanding of Taiwan's historical development, we can see that these demands are the striving for liberal democracy and independence, and that when the government puts pressure on the people to suppress these ideas, the people will fight back.
Three, during the KMT government's long monopoly on power, it protected its community interests, and used a lock-down policy to suppress Taiwan's history, culture and language. This pressure made it impossible for the voice of Taiwan's community to be heard, creating a gulf of misunderstanding between the Mainlanders and Taiwanese.
The problems created by the one-party state were simplified and represented as a ethnic question, but if we look back over the decades of the KMT's rule, we can see that the true source of the problem is the KMT's need to protect its own interests and those of the community it represented.
Four, the KMT should take responsibility for its misuse of power through arresting and executing Taiwanese without an open trial. In the destruction of life, body, freedom, reputation and possessions, the KMT was flagrantly violating human rights.
Five, the fact that the ethnicity, wealth, status and position of the new immigrants in society was all of a piece is a gross oversimplification perpetrated by the KMT in the course of its rule.
For all of these reasons, the responsibility for the massacre cannot be laid at the collective feet of the new immigrants. We must look at the contemporary circumstances and review the responsibility of those in power. This is the only way to see the problem without it being obscured or muddled.
Some people believe that to bring up the 228 Incident will revive bad memories and inter-ethnic animosity. But this line of thinking cannot stand up to the scrutiny of history.
One of the most popular topics in modern Chinese history is how, after the Opium War, the Western powers invaded China and brought down the Qing dynasty. Doesn't speaking about the invasion of the Western powers in East Asia also revive unpleasant memories?
The history of the Republic of China (ROC) makes much of the 1911 revolution that overthrew the Qing dynasty, but doesn't this history also make distinctions between the Han and Manchu peoples, not to mention other ethnic groups? Our history texts discuss these issues, which all have ethnic repercussions, in great detail.
At the same time we say that to discuss the 228 Incident, to record what happened, is to incite ethnic conflict. Isn't this a double standard? Isn't this simply Han chauvinism or a perspective colored by "Greater China" ideology?
The KMT's one-party state educational policy often includes the discourse of Greater China ideology and neglects Taiwan. Subject to this type of education, people are eventually influenced by it, making it impossible for them to take a Taiwanese perspective in looking at these historical questions.
The new immigrants see themselves as "Mainlanders" and become unable to enter into the spirit of a Taiwan community, and might even associate themselves exclusively with the privileged position of the new immigrant regime, making it impossible for them to be objective.
We should pursue historical truth, so that we can find understanding and forgiveness from knowledge of the facts. By sticking our heads in the sand so that we see and hear nothing is simply a way of escaping unpleasant realities.
From the 1990s, when Taiwan began to emerge as a democratic nation, the 228 Incident also emerged as a topic of discussion. This is very gratifying. But in the name of reconciliation between the government and the opposition, the pan-green camp and the pan-blue camp, and between the various ethnic groups, accountability for the incident has become blurred.
The facts about the incident have been obscured and it is now difficult to study the 228 Incident from the standpoint of justice, human rights, fairness, rule of law and democracy. This should not be the case in a normal society.
The 228 Incident took place 58 years ago. Although we are not the perpetrators, nor the direct victims, this event has had an impact on our lives. Regardless of our ethnicity, it has left its scar and has become part of our experience of history.
If we face up to what happened and examine our responses, we will have a chance to transcend it, turning our energy to more constructive purposes.
Chang Yen-hsian is the director of the Historica Sinica.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS