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.
Ben Goren
Taipei
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS