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
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS