Former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator and National Dong Hwa University academic Yosi Takun (孔文吉) — a member of the Sediq community — traveled to China to attend an exchange event hosted by Yunnan Minzu University.
There, he repeated the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “united front” slogans. I strongly agree with Malas Takisdahuan’s (邱孟玲) criticism of Yosi’s remarks in her article published in the Liberty Times — sister newspaper of the Taipei Times — on Friday. This article serves to support and respond to Malas’ arguments.
There were many falsehoods in Yosi’s remarks. The only reasonable statement he made was that “minority cultures are an important part of Chinese civilization.” However, Taiwanese indigenous peoples are not part of China’s minority cultures.
The “Out of Africa” theory — a theory explaining the spread of humanity widely accepted in contemporary academic circles — proposes that all humans share a common ancestor who originated from Africa.
The ancestors of Han Chinese people lived in regions suitable for agricultural development, allowing them to become the dominant ethnic group earlier than the ancestors of minority peoples. As a result, they were able to develop more complex political systems much earlier, and regarded themselves as the only advanced and civilized society in the Central Plains area of China — to them, other ethnic groups were barbarians. However, in Chinese history, many other ethnic minorities also developed political systems rivaling the Han’s, such as the Liao, Jin, Yuan and Manchu Qing dynasties. Those cultures are, of course, integral parts of Chinese civilization.
Interactions between Taiwanese indigenous peoples and the Han Chinese have a 400-year history at most. How, then, can Yosi claim that Taiwan’s indigenous cultures are a part of Chinese civilization?
The CCP’s assertions that Taiwanese indigenous peoples are a part of China’s ethnic minorities are based solely on the claim that their early ancestors came from China. However, the migration of those people to Taiwan is estimated to have occurred at least 5,000 to 6,000 years ago, when the world was still made up of tribal societies and the concept of “China” did not exist. If such a weak connection is enough to claim that Taiwan’s indigenous peoples are part of China’s ethnic minorities, then should everyone not return to Africa to reconnect with their long lost relatives?
In its efforts to push its “united front” tactics, the CCP has come up with all kinds of fallacies to take advantage of Taiwan. All the more nauseating is that some Taiwanese politicians have echoed those narratives to gain political resources. By parroting the CCP’s rhetoric, Yosi is siding with the enemy and betraying his people — there is even a possibility that his ancestors fled to Taiwan thousands of years ago to escape persecution by the Han.
One can only hope that, as he does this, Yosi stops to think about how he would face his ancestors when it is time to cross the rainbow bridge.
Chen Chun-bin is a professor at Taipei National University of the Arts.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS