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
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
RSS