One of Taiwan's more inspiring characteristics is the striking degree of harmony that exists between its indigenous Austronesian population and the Han Taiwanese community, and particularly in the light of the nation's bloody past. Compared with other countries in the region such as Australia and China, Taiwanese Aborigines are quite free of the aggressive racism of officials and ordinary people in the former nation or of the political and religious repression of the latter.
So when the Council of Indigenous Peoples announced the nation's official recognition of a 13th Aboriginal "tribe," it was a credit to activists, the government and the wider community that the desire of people to be known by others as they would know themselves was embraced so smoothly. The 13th "tribe" is the Sakiraya (also rendered as Sakizaya) of northern Hualien County, who were formerly included in the Amis, the nation's largest group of Aboriginal people.
Celebrations aside, an opportunity is presented to identify deeper problems that official recognition and ceremonial pride tend to shield from wider view.
The concepts of "tribe" and even "people" are misleading in categorizing Taiwan's indigenous populations, because traditional Aboriginal lives revolved around the village or groups of allied villages, often of varying size. The idea that a common language in itself united Aboriginal communities in practical terms is fallacious, even though the current naming scheme seeks to do just that.
Since the arrival of the Japanese, and especially since the arrival of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, conceptions of village loyalty and the anthropological structures that bolstered them were manipulated and often damaged by officials seeking to inculcate devotion to the Japanese emperor or to the Chinese state.
When modern-day Aboriginal activists began fighting back against the KMT in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the need to establish a respectful group title was the priority; the end result in the mid-1990s was the term yuanzhumin (original inhabitants).
The derogatory or racist terms that yuanzhumin supplanted have little currency these days. And now that Aborigines have their own Cabinet-level bureaucracy, the symbolic fight has turned away from distinctiveness from Han Taiwanese and toward distinctiveness from each other.
The Council of Indigenous Peoples is not keen to stress this, but the fact remains that even today Aboriginal society does not readily lend itself to pan-ethnic solidarity, and this applies as much at the present "tribal" level as the catch-all "Aboriginal" level. This problem has been institutionalized by divisions that flare up at election time as a handsome majority of candidates apply the lessons of their one-time KMT masters and bribe as many voters as their campaign budgets will possibly allow.
Democratic processes have, ironically enough, wrought damage on the most fundamental level of Aboriginal society in order that Aborigines can compete with and have a voice among Han Taiwanese at the county and national levels.
So when Premier Su Tseng-chang (
Romantic notions of Aboriginal empowerment must be put aside so that the fundamentals stay in focus: village economics, resources, language survival and local autonomy. Changing names may be an important step in some cases, but never the solution.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US