On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei.
Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators.
In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern” regarding how Chu’s words threatened to trivialize the atrocities committed against the victims of the Holocaust, “distorting the memory of the past for political ends.”
The representative offices of France, the Netherlands, and Belgium in Taiwan soon reposted Germany’s statement. The Israel Economic and Cultural Office in Taipei issued an even more direct rebuke, stating that Chu’s “comparisons are deeply offensive to the memory of 6 million Jewish people who suffered and perished.”
Chu’s remarks raise serious objections, as many commentators have pointed out. There is also the need to reflect upon how we develop discourses of past traumas. It is not that we must never draw comparisons between different instances of suffering and injustices; the question is how.
Scholars of trauma narratives have suggested that different modes of commemoration can facilitate or hinder collective healing. Emory University sociologist Xu Bin (徐彬) said that, in the aftermath of a disaster, such as Hurricane Katrina or the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake, the state might be tempted to lean on a “can do” narrative, glossing over the depth of the victims’ suffering and, instead, emphasizing the promise of resilience. This leaves survivors feeling alone and unheard.
Alternatively, Christina Simko, as associate professor of sociology at Williams College, said that an “acting out” narrative, exemplified by the Holocaust Museum or some Sept. 11 speeches, aims to create the social space for a collective re-experiencing of the emotional pains caused by these tragedies. Simko’s research further suggests that, rooted in a deep appreciation of such pains, a “working through” narrative may eventually emerge, which seeks to develop greater compassion for broader human suffering.
If we attempt to discuss the Holocaust in today’s Taiwan, it is our duty to bear witness to the suffering of the 6 million Jewish people who were murdered in the Holocaust, feel the pain the best we can, and only then might we possibly begin to make meaningful comparisons between different atrocities and cultivate a compassionate narrative about how to avoid repeating similar horrors.
Chu’s remarks did not contribute meaningfully to any established narrative of Holocaust trauma — neither the “working through,” nor the “acting out,” nor even the more sanitized “can do” discourse. Moreover, this instance was one of several misappropriations of the Holocaust memory in Taiwan in recent years. In 2016, for the anniversary of Hsinchu Kuang-Fu Senior High School, a class held a Nazi-themed parade. Last month, a KMT Youth League member wore a Nazi armband, held a copy of Mein Kampf and raised Nazi salutes outside the New Taipei City Prosecutors’ Office. These reveal a worrisome lack of historical understanding or sensitivity.
Instead of bearing witness, developing compassion, or even encouraging resilience, these young people and politicians used others’ trauma as a metaphor for their alleged victimization — victimization by mainstream culture, by their political opponents, or by other powers. By reducing others’ traumas to merely a metaphor for their own grievances, these actions serve to erase Jewish people from their own story of suffering and are therefore fundamentally selfish and deeply harmful — even if unintentionally.
It is high time that we cultivate deeper understandings of histories and humbler appreciations of others’ traumas.
Lo Ming-cheng is a professor of sociology at the University of California-Davis.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS