Two awards for contribution to the study of Sinology were announced on Monday.
The first was for British art historian Jessica Rawson, named this year’s winner of the Tang Prize in Sinology. The Tang Prize was established in 2012 by Taiwanese entrepreneur Samuel Yin (尹衍樑).
The second was for Slovenian Sinologist Jana Rosker, who won the Taiwan-France Cultural Award — established by the Ministry of Culture and the Institut de France’s Academy of Moral and Political Sciences — for her work introducing Taiwanese philosophy to Europe. Rosker said that Taiwan has integrated Western philosophy and Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism into a “unique” philosophy that keeps Chinese culture and philosophy alive.
Observers unaware of Taiwan’s past might wonder why a Taiwanese entrepreneur and Taiwan’s Ministry of Culture were recognizing contributions to Sinology, the study of all things Chinese. Does Taiwan not have its own distinct culture worth celebrating?
When tourists come to Taiwan, they will probably visit the National Palace Museum (NPM), home to the imperial collection of China and brought to Taiwan by the Chinese National Party (KMT) government fleeing the Chinese communists after World War II.
To experience local religious culture, they might visit temples or join a Matsu pilgrimage, both of which are Chinese in origin.
Taiwan’s renowned tea culture is a combination of Chinese and Japanese tea traditions, introduced to Taiwan over time, starting three centuries ago with the arrival of Chinese immigrants and merchants.
Tourists might also visit Yingge (鶯歌) to buy ceramics. Many of the potters originally came from China following the KMT in exile, having learned their craft and their techniques in various regions of China, and training the next generation of potters in Taiwan.
Painted ceramics produced in Yingge until China opened up its markets in the late 1980s were in many cases imitation Chinese imperial wares for export.
The presence in Taiwan of the NPM collection is a direct result of the war and the KMT’s exile. Matsu culture evolved over time; tea culture, too, comes from a more long-standing evolution, with hodgepodge collections of treasured tea-related paraphernalia gradually accumulated by merchants and recent immigrants, an example of a distinctly Taiwanese bent on an essentially imported culture. The aftermath of the war and the immigration of skilled potters simply sped up a process that had been evolving naturally.
There is nothing unusual about a nation absorbing elements of other cultures, fertilizing cultural hybridization over time. However, Taiwan’s fragmented and complicated colonial past has meant that culture has been forced upon the local populace for ideological reasons, and all but eradicated the traditional culture of the indigenous communities that existed in Taiwan for millennia prior to successive waves of immigration from China.
This happened with the Kominka movement (皇民化運動) of assimilation during the Japanese colonial period and the de-Japanization and Sinicization of Taiwan under the KMT, which not only wanted to transplant Chinese culture and identity on Taiwan, but also to forge identification with and loyalty to the Republic of China (ROC).
The Sinicization gave Taiwan a legitimate claim to be the world’s representative of traditional Chinese culture and therefore an important tool for developing soft power that the KMT and the pro-localization Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have used for their own benefit.
Taiwan does, of course, have its own culture, but a distinct culture requires time and space to evolve. Taiwanese writers and artists have expressed their lived experiences through their works, but past KMT governments had a vested interest in suppressing those elements and emphasizing traditional Chinese culture.
Pro-localization means allowing Taiwanese to evolve their own culture, unconstrained by ideological demands, while simultaneously interpreting absorbed Chinese cultural elements such as tea, ceramics, art and philosophy.
As the world’s nations sailed the River Seine during the opening ceremony for the Olympics last month, Taiwan once again suffered the enduring humiliation of being the sole country forced to sail under a fictitious name and flag. “Chinese Taipei” is not merely a fake place, but part of a strategic campaign by China to conquer Taiwan in the minds of the global public, forcing the international community to accept the fiction that China has authority over Taiwan, as I have written before in the Taipei Times (“Taiwan’s ‘Chinese Taipei’ problem,” May 22, page 8). If Taiwanese wish to be seen as
Air New Zealand Ltd’s decision to ditch its 2030 emissions target suggests more airlines would also have to confront a harsh reality: There is simply not enough sustainable fuel or new, more efficient aircraft. This double whammy has left the world’s commercial carriers, among the planet’s biggest polluters, without their two best decarbonization weapons. Global supply of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) would be just 0.5 percent of total fuel requirements this year, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) said. At the same time, Boeing Co and Airbus SE cannot make jets fast enough. Boeing, under pressure from regulators, has slowed output
Aurelijus Vijunas’ recent opinion article “An accurate term for ‘Taiwanese’” (Aug. 3, page 8) argues that ‘Taiwanese’ (the common name for Hoklo) is not a suitable name for the Southern Min variety spoken in Taiwan. He presents three main points: Taiwanese is mutually intelligible with some Southern Min varieties, especially in China; the name was coined by Japanese officials without linguistic basis; and Taiwan is a multilingual and multicultural society. Vijunas’ arguments are flawed based on global language naming. First, he conflates language naming with linguistic classification. While Taiwanese is a Southern Min variety, many languages are named independently of their typological
Ahead of this year’s presidential election, all three major candidates — William Lai (賴清德), Hou You-yi (侯友宜) and Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — announced their support for spending 3% of Taiwan’s gross domestic product on defense. This goal dates back to the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) administration. It is no longer sufficient, nor reassuring to foreign supporters who fear Taiwan is not sufficiently committed to its own defense. At the time of Chen’s election to the presidency in 2000, Taiwan’s defense spending as a share of GDP had been declining for decades. When the United States withdrew from the US-ROC mutual defense treaty