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
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS