C.V. Chen (
But what exactly does Chen mean by "culture?" For much of the 19th century "culture" was generally understood as unconditionally positive and something one either had or didn't have; being "cultured" was associated with, for example, being well-mannered and mastering a corpus of classical literature.
But in 1871, British anthropologist Edward Tyler formulated a new definition for "culture," one that has been influential to this day: "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society."
So in Tyler's formulation, everyone has culture, but culture is not an absolute good. Using Tyler's definition, I would not advocate linking one's identity too rigidly with any culture, or one is liable to perceive cultural criticism as an attack on one's identity, which is likely to promote fear and irrationality.
While I agree with the general thrust of Chen's argument that culture and politics need not be linked, Chen seems to have adopted the inflexible position that Chinese culture should necessarily be a source of pride and should not be criticized or "removed." But if we understand culture as a set of socially and historically acquired symbols, beliefs and practices, we can see that some of these elements may be outdated and others even pernicious.
Speaking of concrete policies, relative to what they learn now, Taiwanese students are better off learning more Taiwanese history and less Chinese history, more composition in modern Mandarin and less memorization of literary Chinese. The traditional "Chinese" method of education by rote should be reduced in favor of methods that foster the qualities of creativity and rational reflection.
To return to Chen's article, I'd like to draw the reader's attention to several misleading statements. First, he writes that hopefully unification will "happen when the political and economic systems of the two sides are compatible" -- but the real question is if this will occur, not when. Second, he calls Hoklo a "dialect," but judged on non-political, linguistic terms, Hoklo is clearly a language, not a dialect. Chen writes that "some politicians have made meticulous calculations to claim that the Taiwanese have long since ceased to have very much Chinese blood in their veins." In doing so, he builds a straw man and ignores the recent research of professional scientists and scholars showing substantial biological and historical connections between Han and non-Han populations -- connections that were previously unknown or suppressed.
Perhaps it would be easier to think more clearly about these debates if we used the word "Chinese" more narrowly to refer to the culture or citizens of the PRC.
What people now call "Chinese culture" could more accurately be labeled "Sinitic culture" or "Han culture" ("Han" being primarily a historical/cultural rather than biological category).
To draw a parallel, we know that Jews are not necessarily Israelis, and Israelis are not necessarily Jews -- and so Jews outside Israel thankfully don't fret over "de-Israelization" when deciding whether or not to send their children to Hebrew school.
Douglas Gildow
Cambridge, Massachusetts
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