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.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS