This Tomb Sweeping Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) returned to his hometown to pay respects to his ancestors, using the occasion to indirectly accuse the Democratic Progressive Party of forgetting its roots and betraying Chinese culture. Since it appears Chu has confused the three concepts of a political regime, a nation and culture, let us talk about it.
My ancestors arrived in Taiwan’s Mingjian (名間) during the reign of the Qing emperor Kangxi (康熙) and settled around Bagua Mountain (八卦山). My family has lived in Taiwan for 10 generations.
My founding ancestor at the time lived in the matriarchal society of the indigenous Pingpu, and many of my maternal ancestors were also Pingpu.
After more than 300 years of bloodline integration and deep-rooted settlement, Taiwan has long been my and my family’s motherland. The land across the Taiwan Strait could only be defined as the land where my early ancestors once lived, during the Qing Dynasty, which has absolutely no connection to the present-day People’s Republic of China.
In terms of Chinese culture, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) carried out the Cultural Revolution in 1966 — true Chinese culture was destroyed many years ago. This is why China uses simplified characters, while Taiwan has preserved the use of traditional characters. It is Taiwan — not the CCP — that has continued to promote Chinese culture.
Furthermore, Taiwanese inherited more than just China’s Central Plains Culture — we also integrated with Austronesian, immigrant and maritime cultures, resulting in an inclusive, expansive and magnificent culture of our own.
Chu’s first blind spot is that he fails to recognize Taiwan’s diverse culture, instead insisting on respecting Chinese culture alone. His second blind spot is that he equates Chinese culture with the CCP regime, the party responsible for its destruction. His third blind spot is that he refuses to cherish Taiwan — the nation that gave him his roots — rather, he inexplicably longs for communist China and adds fuel to the fire by growing closer to the vultures that govern there.
Chu accused others of forgetting their roots, playing games with the descendants of the Yan and Huang emperors — a reference to the inheritors of Han Chinese culture — and mixing up the concepts of a political regime, a nation and culture.
He identifies with the CCP regime, yet shows no gratitude or recognition for the land, the nation or the citizens of the place that raised him. It is clear that he is the one with ulterior motives.
Chen Chi-nung is a political commentator.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS