The National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, is the world’s largest ethnology museum, yet regrettably, this nationally funded institution has accepted the political propaganda of “one China.”
The “East Asia Regional Cultures of China” section on the museum’s Web site says that “China has 56 ethnic groups, composed of Han Chinese and 55 ethnic minorities.”
These “56 ethnic groups” and specifically the “55 ethnic minorities” are a taxonomy compiled by the Chinese government. Among the 55 are the so-called “high-mountain tribes” — meaning Taiwanese indigenous groups. The Web site also includes a map of the “distribution of ethnic groups in China.” Taiwan is included in this.
The exhibition hall itself is divided into 10 thematic exhibition areas including “Musical Instruments,” “Religion and Writing” and “Transmission of Chinese Tradition.”
There is also an exhibition area on “Taiwan Indigenous Peoples.”
Do the museum staff truly believe that Taiwan is a part of China or have they just capitulated to China’s demands?
The staff are no doubt aware that Taiwan is a country, as their map of “China” includes a line traversing down the middle of the Taiwan Strait to separate Taiwan and China.
However, this median line was only added to avoid complaints about “one China.”
Perhaps the staff are just trying to round their bases concerning Japan-China relations. There are plenty of academics in Japan who place a “one China” mention in their articles just to play it safe. However, those academics tend to be second-rate and have abandoned their common sense.
On Tuesday, I called the museum’s head offices and asked them to remove the references to “one China.”
The office said they “understood” that Taiwan is not part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and gave a half-baked explanation that the “China” referred to in the “Regional Cultures of China” exhibit was not referencing the PRC, but rather “areas with Chinese culture.”
However, I said: “The ‘China’ that the Japanese government refers to is the PRC. It doesn’t include Taiwan,” adding: “You should not lump Taiwanese indigenous groups in with the minority ethnic groups of the PRC — Taiwanese indigenous groups have nothing to do with ‘Chinese culture.’”
Still, the museum office staff insisted that many Taiwanese who visit the museum are quite happy to see an exhibition that includes Taiwanese indigenous groups.
In response I said: “Just because they are not making a fuss, does not mean that they are happy that the museum is purposely mislabeling them.”
The museum’s office said that up to 200,000 visitors visit the museum every year.
I told them: “Please do not mislead all these people into thinking that Taiwan is a part of China,” adding: “China’s ‘one China’ principle is political propaganda and the museum should not politicize academic research.”
I pressed them to take down their inaccurate displays, unsure of how a museum that has already aligned itself with Beijing’s propaganda might respond.
I realized that Taiwanese museum-goers’ charitable attitude and reluctance to complain gives this museum and others the false impression that they can explain away the severity of their bullying of Taiwan through their “one China” capitulation.
Both the government and Taiwanese must speak up and say that “Taiwan” is simply “Taiwan,” especially in this age of Chinese cognitive warfare.
This needs to be done as soon as possible and at every chance.
Hideki Nagayama is the chairman of the Taiwan Research Forum.
Translated by Tim Smith
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS