Pro-Chinese media have lately made a big deal over whether to use the term “Japanese rule” or “Japanese occupation” when talking about the Japanese colonial era in Taiwan.
Both terms have a lot going for them. Even from a pro-Taiwanese perspective, there is nothing wrong with saying “Japanese occupation.” What pro-unification politicians and media outlets are trying to do is to treat Taiwanese history as a part of Chinese history so that it focuses on Greater China and rejects any Taiwan-centric explanations of Taiwan’s history.
I have often asked my freshman students which country was responsible for bombing Taiwan during the later stages of World War II. Surprisingly, 30 percent of students answer: “Japan.” When reminded that Taiwan was a Japanese colony at the time and asked why Japan would bomb its own territory, one answer that is given is “Didn’t we fight an eight-year war of resistance against Japan?” That answer shows what the problem is: the problem lies in the word “we.” Who are “we?” The “we” that was taught to students in the past was focused on Greater China. That is what created this absurd understanding of history.
Taiwanese history differs from Chinese history. The two have developed along different trajectories and it is neither a vertical nor an inclusive relationship, but a parallel one. To make an analogy, the histories of China’s Hebei or Sichuan provinces can be seen as Chinese local histories, but Taiwanese history is different. It cannot be observed by completely incorporating it into Chinese history. Rather, to look at Taiwanese history, it must be perceived as a part of world history.
During China’s 3,000 to 4,000 years of history, Taiwan has only been a part of it for a very short period of time: when administered by the Qing Dynasty between 1684 and 1895 — which could be called the “Qing occupation” — and by the then Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government between October 1945 and late 1949. Even during that time, Taiwanese developments differed substantially from those in China proper.
Looking at overall Taiwanese history, Taiwan has for most of the time been not a part of China. Taiwan’s modern development began as world history entered the maritime era, and is not a part of Chinese history.
In the past, Taiwanese history was treated as a sub-branch of Chinese history because Taiwan was seen as a part of Chinese society. Ethnicity is not necessarily the only factor in considering history. Most of the Anglo-Saxons, which make up the bulk of the US population, came from Great Britain, but that doesn’t make US history part of British history. Likewise, 75 percent of all Singaporeans are of Chinese descent, as most of their ancestors came from Fujian Province, but that does not make Singaporean history part of Chinese history. The same goes for Taiwan.
History education in the past looked at Taiwan as being located on the fringes of China, so Taiwanese became unfamiliar with Taiwan. Students’ national identities became confused and this must be blamed on the history education.
The teaching of the history of Taiwan as an independent subject is often the target of two kinds of distortion and vilification by pro-unification media. One is that these teachers oppose the study of Chinese history, but many of the academics that are members of the Taiwan Historical Association study Chinese history.
The second vilifies those holding the historic view that Taiwan is an independent subject for praising Japan, and even calls those who hold this view “imperial Japanese subjects.” This is a malicious distortion. For example, writing about the anti-Japanese patriot Lin Chiu-wu (林秋梧) is a gateway to the field of Taiwanese history.
Every historian that views Taiwan as an independent subject will touch upon the anti-Japanese movement in Taiwan, with a particular emphasis on the anti-Japanese social movement among the Taiwanese elite. This should be sufficient to refute any such vilification.
Unless Taiwanese are prepared to become a province of the People’s Republic of China, there must be a history education that focuses on Taiwanese identity.
Lee Hsiao-feng is a professor at National Taipei University’s Graduate School of Taiwanese Culture.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS