Before Aug. 1 became Indigenous Peoples’ Day and the anniversary of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) official apology to Aborigines, it was known as the day in 1994 when the government officially dropped the hated “mountain compatriot” (山胞) designation for Aborigines in favor of yuanzhumin (原住民, original inhabitants).
Some might say that the change was merely a symbolic move that did not tangibly improve the lives of Aborigines, but it was an important early victory for the then-fledgling Aboriginal rights movement, which took root in about 1984 and continues today.
The designation issue was at the forefront of an ethnic movement that sought to unite the Aborigines and solidify their identity as a collective people under a name of their own choice.
Today we take the term for granted, but it did not come easily, despite a survey by the Academia Sinica showing that only 7 percent of Aborigines at the time approved of the term “mountain compatriots.”
Even so, the National Assembly dismissed their request and wrote “mountain compatriot” into constitutional amendments in 1991 and 1992.
Reluctant to acknowledge Aborigines’ claim as the first inhabitants of Taiwan, the government in 1992 even suggested terms such as “early inhabitants” (早住民) and “ethnic minorities” (少數民族).
These sound absurd after 25 years, but Taiwan was then a society in transition, only recently removed from authoritarian rule, according to which everyone was “Chinese.”
That said, the government’s refusal to comply might have been a blessing in disguise, as it helped raise the public status and visibility of Aborigines.
With each protest detailed in the newspapers, this was the beginning of a shift in public consciousness from Aborigines being an impoverished, backward populace who did not matter to the long-oppressed first inhabitants of the land who would be silent no more.
Looking at these reports, it is apparent how invisible Aborigines were and how oblivious mainstream society was to their plight.
A 1991 Taiwan Times article had to refer to the American movie Dances With Wolves to highlight what Aborigines were going through.
However, the designation issue quickly became a national debate, with university students publishing letters supporting the cause.
So it was more than just a symbolic achievement.
The eradication of the term “mountain compatriots” from government use should always be remembered.
However, what is often not mentioned is that the change was just one of many requests presented by the Taiwan Aboriginal Rights Association to the National Assembly in 1991, 1992 and 1994.
As early as 1988, the association made a declaration of rights that touched on issues that are still pertinent today, such as land rights, cultural and linguistic preservation and self-governance. That year saw the first large-scale protest for Aboriginal land rights — the same topic as the most recent demonstrations.
Unfortunately, these issues are much more complex than a simple name change and remain mostly unresolved. Even the granting of official status to Aboriginal languages might not reverse their path toward extinction.
Aborigines are angry at Tsai, whom they claim has not lived up to the promises she made in the apology.
While it takes time to implement new policy, it is also important to understand their frustration. There is just so much patience and trust a group can have in the government if they have been fighting for the same thing for decades.
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