Cultural sensitivity toward Aborigines has been called into question again after National Chengchi University president Kuo Ming-cheng (郭明政) said on Monday that “400 years ago, Taiwan was a primitive society where people did not have sufficient clothes to cover their bodies,” when welcoming a Czech delegation.
Kuo made the statement with regard to Taiwan’s modern technological advancements, human rights achievements and stellar performance in combating the COVID-19 pandemic, of which the nation should certainly be proud.
However, it was completely unnecessary to make such a juxtaposition. It is a given that almost any country is significantly more advanced than it was 400 years ago, but to call life back then “primitive” is problematic, as the Aborigines already had a rich and vibrant culture that was only primitive through the eyes of the waves of colonizers who exploited them and encroached on their land.
Yes, the Aborigines were non-literate, with different values and ways of life from the Han settlers, but calling them primitive perpetuates the colonial prejudices that led to them being branded “savages” and “barbarians” who needed to be “tamed” or “civilized” for the next few centuries.
It does not matter whether Kuo meant any ill will, but with such a violent and traumatic history and continuing problems today, cultural sensitivity is extremely important regardless of his intentions.
Furthermore, there were already a handful of Han Chinese settlers in Taiwan 400 years ago, and the Dutch established a colony in Taiwan in 1624 and the Spanish in 1626. Would Kuo consider them “primitive” as well?
Many Internet users took umbrage at the “did not have sufficient clothes to cover their bodies” part as well. Kuo used the Mandarin idiom yi bu bi ti (衣不蔽體), which could be interpreted in many ways. According to the Ministry of Education’s official online dictionary, besides the literal definition, the idiom implies that the people were “dressed in rags” and “living in extreme poverty,” which the Aborigines were certainly not 400 years ago. Some are indeed disadvantaged today due to centuries of marginalization, cultural destruction and blatant discrimination, which makes the comment even more inappropriate.
The appropriate thing to do in this situation is to apologize and help raise awareness of the problem, as discrimination remains an issue in Taiwanese society on so many levels.
However, Kuo’s apology appears to have made things worse, as he tried to justify his claims, saying that historical documents indicate that at least some Aborigines were scantily clad. He further compared “a primitive society where people did not have sufficient clothes to cover their bodies” to an uncut jade, where people lived as one with the heavens and Earth.
“It does not mean that they were backward and uncivilized,” he said.
Being correct does not mean anything when it comes to cultural sensitivity, and even if the documents indicate as such, it does not mean that Kuo’s statement was not offensive — and he committed the offense again by repeating it in his apology.
He went on to praise the Aborigines, saying Taiwan would not have had its accomplishments today without their “exuberant vitality,” adding that people should thank them for what they have given Taiwan.
That really does not help things and perpetuates a colonizer mentality. What have they given, when everything was actually taken from them?
This came from the head of one of the top higher-education institutions in Taiwan. Kuo should own up to what he said and use his position to educate the public on why it was inappropriate, not desperately try to excuse himself. It is only making him look worse and is setting a bad example.
Taiwan’s domestic political situation is following recognizable political rhythms, while the international environment surrounding Taiwan is undergoing a major transformation. Within Taiwan, there are ongoing battles between the legislative and executive branches over the budget, and between cities and the central government over resources. Tensions between political parties dominate headlines and consume much of the attention of party leaders. Jockeying is underway for local elections this November and national elections in 2028. And the longstanding philosophical debate inside Taiwan over how best to protect Taiwan and promote the good life remains unresolved. Amidst all of this, Taiwan continues to function well. It
In an article published on Tuesday in The Atlantic, titled “Will Taiwan Just Give Up?”, journalist Simon Shuster emphasizes the unpredictability of the US as an ally under US President Donald Trump and cites diminishing faith in the US as a contributor to what he sees as waning determination to resist China. As the title suggests, Shuster views a deal between Taiwan and China as an increasingly inevitable alternative to a costly war — one that Taiwan, lacking reliable allies and military capabilities, would eventually be destined to lose. He focuses on Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) — her
With candidate registration for this year’s local elections closed on Sept. 4 and the elections less than 80 days away, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen’s (沈伯洋) rapidly growing popularity has become the focus of political talk shows and online discussions over the past week, heating up the mayoral election race in Taipei. Local media headlines and political pundits have picked up his supporters’ slogan “ocean current” (洋流) — a play on the last character of Shen’s name, which literally means “ocean” (洋), and the character (流), which can mean “current,” “flow” or “trend” — to
When was the last time you heard a meaningful proposal to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal? There has been nothing on the subject since the June Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Iran; the promised 60 days of talks to settle questions around Tehran’s uranium-enrichment program never began and have long since expired. When the war was launched, on Feb. 28, a resolution of the nuclear dispute was prominent among the dizzying array of US and Israeli aims to explain the attack. But as should be clear by now, the attempt was entirely reliant on achieving regime change. That
RSS