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 to Taiwan, I became quite busy with my duties at the start of the school term and was forced to set my annoyance aside.
The museum’s exhibit about Taiwanese indigenous groups undoubtedly reflects its stance on concealing reality, further illustrating that its curators are completely detached from the ideological trends of the international community.
The term “indigenous peoples” is used extensively throughout the world and is distinct from the term “ethnic minorities.” Therefore, the International Council for Traditions of Music and Dance, supported by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), has separate study groups for “Indigenous Music and Dance” and “Music and Minorities.”
In a report submitted to the UN in 1987, Jose R. Martinez Cobo proposed a definition for indigenous peoples that has since been revised and supplemented by scholars. Currently, indigenous peoples are defined internationally as those who live in and have a “strong link” to their ancestral lands, but became marginalized under colonization. They have “languages, cultures, beliefs, and knowledge systems” that are distinct from those of their colonizers.
From this, we can understand that having lived under the rule of colonizers is a prerequisite to being classified as indigenous. Taiwanese indigenous peoples have never lived under the rule of the People’s Republic of China — not even for a single day. They cannot even be considered Chinese indigenous people, let alone part of China’s ethnic minorities.
Although not all Chinese ethnic minorities were necessarily colonized by Han Chinese, the two groups have a long history of cultural exchange. In contrast, Taiwanese indigenous peoples have only had a maximum of 400 years of contact with Han Chinese.
Present-day Taiwanese indigenous peoples have been somewhat influenced by Han Chinese, but their Austronesian languages and culture are distinctly different. Therefore, from an academic perspective, it is groundless to define Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities.
The National Museum of Ethnology was established during the 1970 Japan World Exposition held in Osaka. At that time, research on indigenous peoples had not yet been popularized and the international community believed indigenous people would eventually disappear.
In the 21st century, not only have indigenous people not disappeared, but their presence has led to what anthropologist Marshall Sahlins calls “anthropological enlightenment.”
The National Museum of Ethnology was founded more than 50 years ago. Throughout the past half-century, the international perception of museums has undergone significant changes — museums are no longer places for the top-down education of the public.
The 2025 Expo is to be held in Osaka once again. On this occasion, I sincerely hope that the National Museum of Ethnology can keep up with the times. Reclassifying Taiwanese indigenous peoples is the first step on the road to change.
Chen Chun-bin is a professor at Taipei National University of the Arts.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS