As a visiting lecturer at National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of Taiwan History, I have learned a few things about the kinds of courses available at history departments and research institutes in Taiwan. One thing I find astonishing is that, among courses offered for either undergraduates or graduate students, one can hardly find any with titles like “History of the People’s Republic of China [PRC]” or “China since 1949.”
Chengchi’s Institute of International Relations used to do research on the “bandits,” as the Chinese Communist Party and government were called in those days, but this research was limited by the prevailing ideology of the time, and there is no such department anymore.
Even Taiwan’s top research establishment, Academia Sinica, has no department devoted to PRC research.
Chinese history since the 1949 revolution comes under the Institute of Modern History, and as far as I know there aren’t many people researching it. Among universities and institutes that have China research departments, few offer complete courses on PRC history.
I have three reasons for calling this situation astonishing.
First, I studied in the US for 10 years, and also did some research in the UK, so I know that almost every university in Western countries has courses and research on East Asia, or courses on Chinese history that extend beyond 1949.
Now, with the PRC’s “non-peaceful” rise, countries around the world are paying ever-greater attention to understanding China, and modern Chinese history is a popular course to take.
Taiwan’s educational and academic institutions have always taken Europe and the US as their models, so why do they make an exception by overlooking this trend?
Second, following Taiwan’s second transfer of power, cross-strait relations are moving toward concrete and close exchanges. China’s influence over Taiwan is strengthening.
Looking to the future, no matter whether power again changes hands and no matter how greatly the views of Taiwanese on cross-strait relations diverge, China is a presence that cannot be ignored.
When dealing with such a powerful rival, Taiwan cannot afford to be ignorant of its history. As they say, know your opponent as you know yourself.
Of all countries, Taiwan in particular needs to have a deep understanding of the course China has followed over the past 60 years. The need is there, but the education system has not caught up, and that’s a pity.
Third, while there is actually plenty of information about China available in Taiwan these days, especially in the media, I have noticed a trend among some news outlets to tread carefully in their reporting in deference to China’s might.
The picture of China presented by Taiwanese media is rather incomplete. China’s history since 1949 is rarely touched upon. As a result, young people in Taiwan hardly understand anything about China.
Many students in my classes have told me that they chose my course because they want to know more about Chinese history since 1949, so such a demand does exist among students.
If we want to get a real understanding of China, we cannot allow the media, pressured as they are by their practical interests, to mislead the public. It is important to give our students a thorough and carefully analyzed foundation in the PRC’s history.
Wang Dan is a visiting associate professor at National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of Taiwan History and a prominent figure in China’s democracy movement.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS