The release of the movie Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale has generated heated discussion on several topics. The topic that should be given the most thought and that should be properly handled is the issue of old and new grievances between Aborigines and colonial governments.
For the Aborigines, the issues described in the film, such as the Japanese government taking away their hunting grounds and destroying their culture and how the Republic of China (ROC) government did not set things right when it took control of Taiwan, have not changed to this day, and they are still deprived of the land they rely on for their survival. This is one of the main reasons for the Aborigines’ difficult situation.
At the start of the film, it is made clear that an important goal of Japanese colonization was to take hold of Taiwan’s rich forestry and mining resources. In 1895, after the Japanese army overcame widespread resistance, the colonial government imposed a set of regulations restricting the use of forests and camphor production by stating that land that did not have official evidence of ownership or title deeds was to be considered crown land. However, as the Qing government in practice never ruled over the Aborigines living in the mountain areas, they did not have to obtain any proof of land ownership.
This is how the legal system of a modern and “civilized” country was used to seize the hunting grounds and land of the Aborigines. After having their natural resources stolen by the state and capitalists, Aborigines who resisted were militarily subjugated. The government would only extend its grace to those who gave them the right to use some of the land or hunting grounds that had originally belonged to their tribes.
After stealing their hunting grounds and banning Aboriginal traditions — face tattoos, for example — the arrogant colonizing government brought in the benefits of modern civilization such as schools, post offices, shops and job opportunities as a policy of conciliation.
However, tribal men were forced to engage in hard physical labor, while women were forced to work as slaves or keep Japanese men company. The original owners of hunting grounds were forced to work for low pay as they watched the government steal their possessions and land.
In the end, even tribal leader Mona Rudo was only able to drink to numb himself and pretend that this was not going on.
I’ll put it this way: Even if our ancestors were buried on hunting grounds they were familiar with, their spirits are not at ease there. There is nothing worse than the loss of heart and so we now have to fight for our rights.
When the ROC government took over control of Taiwan after Japan was defeated in World War II, it basically continued with Japan’s policies and the way in which Tokyo dealt with Aborigines and their land. The ROC government did not return the hunting grounds and land that was stolen from the Aborigines by the Japanese colonial government, but instead listed it as “national property.” It simply carried on the unjust practices that the Japanese had imposed.
Things changed with Taiwan’s democratization in the 1990s, as the Constitution was amended to recognize the status and rights of Aborigines and the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act (原住民族基本法) was passed by the legislature in 2005, recognizing Aborigines’ rights to land and natural resources, as well as stating how these resources should be returned. This law also states that permission from Aborigines should be sought out before any development is carried out on their land, that benefits be shared and that a co-management mechanism be established.
However, because of the divisions between government agencies and because many people lack an understanding of history, related legislation has come to a standstill and there have even been instances of deliberate interference and neglect.
One example is the proposed east coast development act. Many proposed development projects along the east coast are planned on land that belongs to Aborigines, but the act only includes articles about charitably assisting Aborigines in finding employment and improving their health, sanitation and welfare. It does not clearly state that approval has to be obtained from Aborigines and local villages in accordance with the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act before any development can be carried out. If the government does not respect the original owners of the land, but tries to buy over individual Aborigines through appeasement policies, how is it different from the old Japanese colonial government?
Of course, some may say that Taiwan is a small and densely populated place and that many non-Aborigines live on disputed Aboriginal land and that the government needs the resources on that land to feed everyone. These people may say that demanding that land be returned to Aborigines would mean many non-Aborigines would not be able to stand on their own feet and make a living. However, such worries exaggerate the intentions of Aborigines. The indigenous peoples are willing to share, as long as others respect them and treat them as equals.
Regardless of which ethnic group we are talking about and what historical conflicts we may have had, the fact is that we now all share this place.
The real issue at hand is how we should go about striking a balance between distributive justice and historical justice. On the one hand, we need to avoid threatening the basic survival rights of everyone in society, while on the other hand, we need to offer Aborigines an explanation for their painful history. This is an issue that the entire nation should handle in a serious way.
The Indigenous Peoples Basic Act set out the direction a long time ago and the movie Seediq Bale has liberated thinking throughout Taiwanese society. Now is the best time for the nation and society to face up to its history, accept the reality and look forward to the future.
As a place that likes to talk about how much it values human rights, Taiwan must not repeat the wrongs committed against Aborigines in the past.
Tunkan Tansikian is an assistant professor at National Dong Hwa University’s Department of Indigenous Development and Social Work and a member of the Promotion Committee for the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act of the Executive Yuan.
Translated by Drew Cameron
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS