Gavin Phipps' story on Orchid Island ("Orchid Island spoils the visitor in need of a break," June 29, page 13) is unfortunately filled with many stereotypes and misunderstandings outsiders have about the Tao people (or "Yami" -- the name that was arbitrarily given to them by Japanese anthropologists).
The Tao are a peaceful, ocean-going people with strong linguistic and cultural ties to the Batan Islands of the northern Philippines. There is no credible evidence backing Phipps' condescending assertion that the Tao tribe "made its living raiding villages and breaking heads in Taiwan as well as in China's Fujian Province."
Until their first contact with Dutch colonists in the early 17th century, the Tao's interaction with outsiders was based primarily on peaceful trade with people in the Batans and the Amis tribe of eastern Taiwan. While the occasional inter-village skirmish did occur on the island, the Tao were primarily concerned with fishing, taro farming and adhering to a strict code of social taboos that maintained cohesion within the tribe.
Phipps' assertion that the Tao took part in raids on the Fujian coast can also be taken as further evidence of the common confusion many casual observers encounter when differentiating between Taiwan's Aboriginal tribes. While there are accounts of warriors from the southwestern Siraya plains tribe going on raids across the Taiwan Strait before the Dutch era, such stories are merely anecdotal and tend to reinforce the stereotypical view that prior to their subjugation by the Han people, Taiwan's Aborigines were violence-prone savages.
The Tao people are an invaluable link to Taiwan's pre-Han Pacific heritage, a link that fades a little bit every day thanks to Han chauvinism and environmental pollution. As a vocal supporter of native Taiwanese culture, the Taipei Times has an obligation to both its readers around the world and to its fellow citizens to portray all groups of Taiwanese accurately and objectively, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant their number may be.
Jason Wright
Andrew Kerslake
Washington
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS