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
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS