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
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s