Chan’s White Man’s Burden
At the end of the Taipei Times’ April 21 editorial, “Jackie Chan [成龍] — Friend of Repression,” it states: “The Taipei City Government should do the right thing and replace Chan as its spokesman for this summer’s Deaflympics.”
Despite the fact that I usually agree wholeheartedly with the Taipei Times’ editorial stance, I must, in this instance, with all respect, beg to differ for three reasons:
First, Chan’s views in regard to Hong Kong have been well known for a long time. The Taipei City Government was certainly aware of Chan’s attitude and “world view” before the members invited him to serve as spokesman. Better that they never asked him at all than to retract their invitation.
Second, Chan certainly has his right to freedom of speech. As hopelessly ignorant, naive and truly pathetic as they were, Chan’s comments fell within the acceptable parameters of free speech.
In my opinion, none of his statements were so egregiously hateful, or hate-provoking, that they should be squelched or censored. By the way, I find it ironic that his comments — while receiving considerable notice and commentary in Hong Kong and Taiwan — were ignored in China.
Third, I basically view Chan as a woefully pathetic loser whose “star is descending.” He is desperately clinging to his vanishing career. Hence his groveling and kowtowing.
Most pathetic of all is that he has psychologically internalized imperialist oppression and colonialist ideology.
Chan has psychologically internalized, and made his own, the ideas expressed in Rudyard Kipling’s poem The White Man’s Burden. According to the colonial world view, the non-European peoples of Africa, Asia and the Americas were viewed as helplessly childlike. They were seen as utterly incapable of governing themselves or managing their own affairs. Thus, they were in dire need of a strong, authoritarian “father figure.” White European people viewed themselves as carrying the heavy “burden” of ruling over and encouraging the cultural development of people from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds until such time as these people were able to assume their rightful place in the world by thoroughly adopting Western ways.
Rather than being barred from entering Taiwan, Chan should be encouraged to come and see for himself. Hopefully, he will benefit from the education that he will receive. Hopefully, he will learn through dialogue. At the very least, if allowed to enter Taiwan, Chan will be obliged to explain himself and provide support and proof for his ideas.
MICHAEL SCANLON
East Hartford, Connecticut
No peace without Taiwanese
Fidel Ramos’ key message in his article “Constructing Asia’s missing links” (April 16, page 8) was that peace between Taiwan and China will be established when Taiwan is annexed by China, and when the US stops its arms sales to Taiwan. This is a political position that ignores the Taiwanese who do not want to be part of China, and it ignores the fact that China has about 1,500 missiles aimed at the island and an “Anti-Secession” Law legitimizing a military attack on Taiwan.
Most politicians in Taiwan, regardless of party ideology, agree that deeper economic agreements and an open dialogue with China form part of the way to peace and mutual understanding. This is precisely why Taiwan and China experienced the largest economic integration during Taiwan’s eight years under the Democratic Progressive Party, with independence as its ultimate objective. A pro-China supporter like Ramos should take note of this.
Taiwan’s current Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government is trying to reach a kind of free trade agreement with China. In this context, however, Taiwan is experiencing a heated debate, as China has set the acceptance of a “one China” policy as a condition for an agreement and thus Taiwan would formally become part of China. This is pursued despite 80 percent of Taiwanese being opposed to an agreement with a “one China” condition. Thus, Ramos is speaking against a vast majority of Taiwanese.
US arms sales to Taiwan are, according to Ramos, “a major obstacle to easing tensions.” Arms races are rarely a success, but if China maintains its “Anti-Secession” Law providing for an attack on Taiwan if it will not become part of China, and continues to set up missiles during the current negotiations, Taiwan has the right to buy defensive weapons.
It does not promote understanding of a complex conflict to make a one-sided and distorted analysis of reality while ignoring Taiwan’s democratic population of 23 million people.
MICHAEL DANIELSEN,
CHAIRMAN, TAIWAN CORNER
Copenhagen, Denmark
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