National Palace Museum Director Chen Chi-nan (陳其南) on Monday outlined his plans for introducing a new Taiwan-centric perspective at the institution.
While Chen has yet to clarify how he intends to flesh out his vision, some points do bear raising.
To many, the museum is inextricably linked to China and specifically to Beijing, where its original incarnation remains, Chen said, characterizing the presence of the museum’s collection in Taiwan as something of a historical accident.
It is important to be realistic about what the museum and its collection represents, what it means to Taiwan and Taiwanese, and to separate it from politics.
The museum was established in 1925 as the Palace Museum in Beijing. In the early 1930s, much of the original collection was crated and moved to Shanghai and then to Nanjing to protect it from the ravages of war, before the decision was made to send it to Taiwan when the nationalists were defeated by the communists in the Chinese Civil War in 1949.
Slightly fewer than one-quarter of the crated items were sent over; the rest remained in China.
The collection is one of the world’s most important single collections of ancient and imperial Chinese art and cultural artifacts. It is invaluable not just for the millions of international and Taiwanese visitors to the museum every year, but also for research and conservation.
The collection is of course steeped in Chinese history and culture, as is Taiwan. So what speaks uniquely of the Taiwanese experience? Should it be limited to the Aboriginal cultures and people who originally inhabited — and still inhabit — the nation? Should it include the Chinese merchants and farmers who sailed across the Taiwan Strait three centuries ago? What about the exiled Chinese who arrived with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in 1949?
Having spent the past 70 years stored and exhibited in Taiwan with an intimate connection to the history of the majority of Taiwanese, is there any reason — other than politics — to suggest that the collection has no connection to Taiwan or the experience of Taiwanese?
To put it a different way, how could someone interpret ancient Neolithic nephrite ritual jades from the Taiwanese perspective? How could someone interpret Song Dynasty ru, ding, longquan or jun ware ceramics from a Taiwanese perspective? How about Tibetan Buddhist artifacts or pre-imperial Chinese ritual bronzes?
Chen’s mention of the British Museum is an interesting comparison, albeit not necessarily supportive of his argument.
The British Museum houses important artifacts from around the world and is a major institution for the research and conservation of the world’s cultural heritage. The existence of the collection as a whole speaks of the reach and might of the British Empire when considerably different values informed the plunder of other countries’ heritages. The individual collections are not interpreted from the perspective of Britons, past or present.
Taiwan now has its own identity and sovereignty. The National Palace Museum’s collection is what it is, and it is intricately linked with the experience, culture and history of a large percentage of Taiwanese.
There are other museums in Taiwan that speak of the Aboriginal experience and the nation’s history.
It is pointless to deny the Chinese cultural and historical elements to Taiwanese culture. This does not in any way beholden Taiwanese to the past, and it certainly does not beholden them to the Chinese Communist Party, which also does not represent the breadth of Chinese culture and history.
Taiwanese identity also has to do with the recent past, the present and the future. Obsessing about the collection’s connection to Beijing is exactly what the communist regime in China wants. Learn to let go.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS