Historical, racial legacies
A byproduct of the dispute between Taiwan and the Philippines has been discussion of the concept of “Han chauvinism.”
The term was allegedly coined in 1956 by then-Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東) as a way to criticize ethnocentrism among Han people in China.
Mao was against Han chauvinism and appropriated the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) concept of Zhonghua Minzu (中華民族) as a multi-ethnic nation to distinguish his People’s Republic of China (PRC) from the KMT’s failed Republic of China (ROC) that was also based on the same notion, but which had failed to execute the idea in practice.
It is important to note that the origins and history of Han chauvinism and Chinese nationalism are intricately connected to both the KMT and the ROC.
Indeed, Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) was heavily influenced by the ideologies of racial supremacy that were very popular in Europe and North America at the turn of the century. Sun saw in these ideas the basis for a new way to define the Chinese nation and “Chineseness,” with the specific intent of overthrowing the Qing Dynasty.
Sun once said: “In order to restore our national independence, we must first restore the Chinese nation. In order to restore the Chinese nation, we must drive the barbarian Manchus back to the Changbai Mountains. In order to get rid of the barbarians, we must first overthrow the present tyrannical, dictatorial, ugly and corrupt Qing government.”
Interestingly, the Manchus Sun defined as non-Chinese “other” had appropriated elements of traditional Chinese culture to help incorporate annexed peoples such as the Tibetans, the Mongols and the Uighurs into its empire.
It is a supreme irony that today’s PRC and ROC revise history to absent the Manchu’s “foreign” origins so as to both continue this practice of “using culture to build bridges into occupied territories” and to preserve the fantasy of one continuous 5,000-year-old Chinese nation, mimicking the Qing Dynasty’s imperialism by claiming whole swathes of the South and East China seas, not to forget the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, as parts of ancient China.
Unfortunately, territorial expansion has been a strong feature of both the ROC and PRC since the mid 1930s, when both the KMT and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) started to engineer claims to former Qing Dynasty imperial holdings and tributary states into their respective platforms.
Despite none of the four main iterations of the ROC Constitution actually citing Taiwan as part of the territory of the Chinese nation, both former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Mao added this into their party doctrines as resolute and permanent tenets.
In the post-war power vacuum, Chiang seized the opportunity to unilaterally annex the nation into the ROC.
Across the Taiwan Strait, the PRC continued this imperial revitalization project by occupying Tibet, East Turkestan and a large part of Mongolia.
When we try to understand then why President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九 ) claims Taiwanese as descendants of the Yellow Emperor, why CCP officials talk about blood being thicker than water and why the Ma government prioritizes the unity of “one China” above the democratic self-determination of Taiwan, we should remind ourselves that the KMT was founded as, and remains in its core ideology today, a Han chauvinist and deeply racist party of crude nationalists and colonists.
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his