On the eve of International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on Sunday, Minister Without Portfolio Audrey Tang (唐鳳) discussed in an interview how to solve discrimination against “indigenous peoples,” saying “more than 80 percent of all Taiwanese might have indigenous ancestry.”
However, Taiwan’s outstanding minister was mistaken, a mistake common among the public.
First, “indigenous peoples” is not a concept based on ancestry or genetics.
It refers to shared communities faced with the same political and social situations. The core meaning of “indigenous” lies in the oppression and subjection experienced by a place’s inhabitants, rather than their status as the earliest known inhabitants of that place.
As UN special rapporteur Jose Martinez Cobo defined it in his 1981 report Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations: “Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them.”
International law academic James Anaya defined “indigenous” as referring “broadly to the living descendants of pre-invasion inhabitants of lands now dominated by others.”
Also, the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples “recognizes the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures.”
In short, “indigenous peoples” is a phrase for “imagined communities” born under colonialism, and it does not refer to any specific ancestry or people who were the earliest to live in a region.
When Tang said that most Taiwanese might have “indigenous ancestry,” she was referring to all of the native ethnic groups on this land, such as Taiwan’s Austronesians.
However, when such a concept is involved, English-language speakers tend to use the word “Aboriginal” to refer to locally born and raised people, because it is a neutral term unrelated to any political or social meaning.
In addition, she attempted to construct a sense of homogeneity from the perspective of ancestry, and tried to eliminate discrimination simply by emphasizing that “we are all the same.”
That strategy blurs authentic problems, such as the oppression and marginalization of Aborigines.
The nation’s Aborigines only account for 2 percent of the population, and that 2 percent refers to communities that are being oppressed within a colonial structure.
No matter how many people in the other 98 percent are shown by scientific evidence to have Aboriginal ancestry or genes, it would not change that this land was colonized and exploited by aggressors in modern times.
From land and rights to inappropriate gains, accumulated wealth and structural privileges, the political, economic and social structures behind these issues are the factors that have shaped Taiwan’s Aborigines.
These factors differ from genetics and ancestral studies.
The nation must clarify the difference between the concept of “indigenous peoples” and “locally born and raised natives,” and “the earliest known inhabitants of a place.” If it does not, it will not be capable of truly understanding the essence of the current Aboriginal issue.
Chen Chia-lin is the director of the Taiwan Solidarity Union’s policy department.
Translated by Eddy Chang
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
RSS