"New immigrants" is a term that can be used to refer to the "Mainlanders" who arrived in Taiwan after 1945 in the wake of the Japanese defeat. In fact, this term is more appropriate than "Mainlanders"; after all, Taiwan is a society of immigrants, made up of different ethnic groups and separate waves of immigrants who have coalesced into what is now Taiwanese society.
The immigrants that came in 1945 from various parts of China constituted an armed community, including government, political parties, military, public servants and ordinary people, so that they were necessarily more isolated from society at large, more defensive and xenophobic.
After 50 years of living in Taiwan, these new immigrants have gradually become integrated and can no longer be easily distinguished from other inhabitants. But because their family background, upbringing and education is different from that of immigrants who came to Taiwan prior to 1945, they naturally have a different perspective on history and culture.
This is most evident in different interpretations of the 228 Incident. Some of the new immigrants feel that the incident has nothing to do with them. Despite this, whenever the incident is spoken of, they feel they are being censured.
Others believe that the incident was a revolt against the government and that in order to maintain its authority, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) acted correctly in using military force to suppress the dissidents. They accept the rationalization of the KMT for its actions.
Still others believe that the Taiwanese rejected the new immigrants, and that the government acted as it did to protect these immigrants.
These points of view and the feelings they represent are understandable. But if the new immigrants isolate themselves from the facts of the 228 Incident, they will never overcome the psychological obstacle that this event represents.
One, the incident was a conflict between the rulers and the ruled. After the defeat of the Japanese, the undisciplined and corrupt forces that took over the governance of Taiwan caused people in Taiwan to lose their initial delight and hope for a new future and fall into the depths of despair. Finally they rose up and demanded reform.
The government ignored the voice of the people and sent soldiers to suppress dissent, arresting and executing many Taiwanese. The victims also included new immigrants and Aborigines. Anyone who was perceived as a threat to the government faced arrest and execution.
Two, the 228 Settlement Committee's list of 32 demands were demands that the Taiwanese people originally made under the Japanese colonial regime. Through a deep understanding of Taiwan's historical development, we can see that these demands are the striving for liberal democracy and independence, and that when the government puts pressure on the people to suppress these ideas, the people will fight back.
Three, during the KMT government's long monopoly on power, it protected its community interests, and used a lock-down policy to suppress Taiwan's history, culture and language. This pressure made it impossible for the voice of Taiwan's community to be heard, creating a gulf of misunderstanding between the Mainlanders and Taiwanese.
The problems created by the one-party state were simplified and represented as a ethnic question, but if we look back over the decades of the KMT's rule, we can see that the true source of the problem is the KMT's need to protect its own interests and those of the community it represented.
Four, the KMT should take responsibility for its misuse of power through arresting and executing Taiwanese without an open trial. In the destruction of life, body, freedom, reputation and possessions, the KMT was flagrantly violating human rights.
Five, the fact that the ethnicity, wealth, status and position of the new immigrants in society was all of a piece is a gross oversimplification perpetrated by the KMT in the course of its rule.
For all of these reasons, the responsibility for the massacre cannot be laid at the collective feet of the new immigrants. We must look at the contemporary circumstances and review the responsibility of those in power. This is the only way to see the problem without it being obscured or muddled.
Some people believe that to bring up the 228 Incident will revive bad memories and inter-ethnic animosity. But this line of thinking cannot stand up to the scrutiny of history.
One of the most popular topics in modern Chinese history is how, after the Opium War, the Western powers invaded China and brought down the Qing dynasty. Doesn't speaking about the invasion of the Western powers in East Asia also revive unpleasant memories?
The history of the Republic of China (ROC) makes much of the 1911 revolution that overthrew the Qing dynasty, but doesn't this history also make distinctions between the Han and Manchu peoples, not to mention other ethnic groups? Our history texts discuss these issues, which all have ethnic repercussions, in great detail.
At the same time we say that to discuss the 228 Incident, to record what happened, is to incite ethnic conflict. Isn't this a double standard? Isn't this simply Han chauvinism or a perspective colored by "Greater China" ideology?
The KMT's one-party state educational policy often includes the discourse of Greater China ideology and neglects Taiwan. Subject to this type of education, people are eventually influenced by it, making it impossible for them to take a Taiwanese perspective in looking at these historical questions.
The new immigrants see themselves as "Mainlanders" and become unable to enter into the spirit of a Taiwan community, and might even associate themselves exclusively with the privileged position of the new immigrant regime, making it impossible for them to be objective.
We should pursue historical truth, so that we can find understanding and forgiveness from knowledge of the facts. By sticking our heads in the sand so that we see and hear nothing is simply a way of escaping unpleasant realities.
From the 1990s, when Taiwan began to emerge as a democratic nation, the 228 Incident also emerged as a topic of discussion. This is very gratifying. But in the name of reconciliation between the government and the opposition, the pan-green camp and the pan-blue camp, and between the various ethnic groups, accountability for the incident has become blurred.
The facts about the incident have been obscured and it is now difficult to study the 228 Incident from the standpoint of justice, human rights, fairness, rule of law and democracy. This should not be the case in a normal society.
The 228 Incident took place 58 years ago. Although we are not the perpetrators, nor the direct victims, this event has had an impact on our lives. Regardless of our ethnicity, it has left its scar and has become part of our experience of history.
If we face up to what happened and examine our responses, we will have a chance to transcend it, turning our energy to more constructive purposes.
Chang Yen-hsian is the director of the Historica Sinica.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS