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
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
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
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS