US NSC's 1949 proposals to drive out the KMT from Taiwan

[hansioux]

There are at least two US official documents out there that spell out the US’ determination to keep Taiwan off of the hands of Chinese communist. Many within the National Security Council and US diplomats believed the only way to achieve that was to kick the KMT off the islands.

The first document is NSC’s Report by the National Security Council on the Current Position of the United States With Respect to Formosa

history.state.gov/historicaldoc … 49v09/d310

The other one is George Kennan’s United States Policy Toward Formosa and the Pescadores

history.state.gov/historicaldoc … 49v09/d402

Both documents have been released to the public.

The first document begins with

the U.S. should seek to develop and support a local non-Communist Chinese regime which will provide at least a modicum of decent government for the islands.

It points out that the Chiang regime at the time is considered as worse than just a modicum of decent government. That point is further elaborated on in the later parts of the document.

The U.S. has not been impressed by Chinese administration on the islands and believes that if there is continued misrule the Chinese authorities would inevitably forfeit the support of world opinion which might be expected to swing in favor of Formosan autonomy

It goes on to say

We should also use our influence wherever possible to discourage the further influx of mainland Chinese.

Showing that the US understands if Taiwan is to remain as part of the US’ island defence, the influx of Chinese refugees should be put to a stop. Finally, the NSC determines that autonomy from China should at least be entertained in case it proves useful to the US’ national interest.

The U.S. should also seek discreetly to maintain contact with potential native Formosan leaders with a view at some future date to being able to make use of a Formosan autonomous movement should it appear to be in the U.S. national interest to do so.

George Kennan went a step further and said

the only reasonably sure chance of denying Formosa and the Pescadores to the Communists and insulating the islands from mainland authority would lie in the removal of the present Nationalist administrators from the islands

What Kennan wanted to see instead was

the establishment of a provisional international or U.S. regime which would invoke the principle of self-determination for the islanders and would eventually, prior to a Japanese peace settlement, conduct a plebiscite to determine the ultimate disposition of Formosa and the Pescadores. Formosan separatism is the only concept which has sufficient grass-roots appeal to resist communism.

Two ways were proposed by Kennan to justify the removal of the KMT from Taiwan.

[quote]
a. One would be to induce other Far Eastern powers to take the lead in initiating international action to achieve the above purpose. (For purposes of illustration, I attach a paper outlining such a course of action, drafted on the assumption that this was the course we would wish to pursue.)

b. The other would be to announce a temporary unilateral [b]re-assertion of authority[/b] over the islands on the grounds that subsequent events had invalidated all the assumptions underlying the Cairo Declaration and that U.S. intervention was required by the interests of stability in the Pacific area as well as by the interests of the inhabitants of the islands.[/quote]

These proposals were benched after the outbreak of the Korean war in 1950.

[sofun]

Great find and great synopsis as usual coming from hanxious. Definitely worth bookmarking.

As for the plebiscite, the plan contained five options. The relevant document (top-secret) is in the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) archive.
The plan was drafted by state department and had a disclaimer, that the plan would work assuming that US military authority would proper actions to remove the Chinese. State department basically said in the the top-secrete document that they were ready to pull the trigger, pending US military authority’s cooperation.

[cybertai]

Thanks a lot for these links. And it proves the rumor is actually true that CIA tried to help Sun Li-jen to replace Chiang, as the military leader of KMT’s army.
But Sun Li-jen refused the proposal of US because he will be seen as a traitor. Besides, Sun knows it would be very difficult to stop the invasion of Communist Army, without the help of Chiang and Chiang’s loyal followers.

Most mainland Chinese, soldiers and civilians (around 3 ~ 4 million people) fled to Taiwan around 1949, are loyal followers of Chiang. You might ask why? Because Chiang is the “hero” who leads China to fight Japanese in WWII and win.

Sun Li-jen (traditional Chinese: 孫立人) (December 8, 1900–November 19, 1990) was a Chinese Nationalist (KMT) general, a graduate of Purdue University and Virginia Military Institute.

In 1950, Sun was named Commander in Chief of the Republic of China Army, while also serving as commander of the Taiwan Defense Command and of the Army Training Command. Sun was well respected by the Americans and rumor instigated by CIA it that the Americans would like to help him into power to replace Chiang Kai-Shek, Chiang and his son Chiang Ching-kuo were eager to remove him from power.

In 1955, six years after the Nationalists lost a civil war to Communist forces and retreated to Taiwan, General Sun and other officers were accused of plotting to overthrow Chiang.

[hansioux]

[quote=“cybertai”]

In 1955, six years after the Nationalists lost a civil war to Communist forces and retreated to Taiwan, General Sun and other officers were accused of plotting to overthrow Chiang.[/quote]

If you look at the timing, you’d know Sun’s case was completely made up. Both of those reports were made in 1949, when it was obvious Chiang brought tyranny to Taiwan and at the same time was completely losing the war in China.

All plans against Chiang were dropped after the outbreak of Korean war, and the US actually stepped up protecting the Chiang regime. So CKS’s accusation of Sun plotting to overthrow him is completely trumped up.

[cybertai]

General Sun was freed in 1988, a year after Chiang Ching-kuo’s death, when the Taiwan Government released a 1955 report that had cleared General Sun of involvement in the coup plot.

The Korean War and the fate of Taiwan
taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003476734

On March 1, 1950, Chiang announced he was officially resuming his duties as president. At the time, US reaction was rather cool. Not long before, in a statement issued on Jan. 5, Truman had announced that although the Cairo Communique and Potsdam Declaration had effectively placed Taiwan under Chiang’s control, the US would not provide any form of military support or consultation to his forces stationed in Taiwan.

Truman changed his policy less than six months later when he ordered the Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait.

[cybertai]

After the Korean War, the US/KMT relationship has changed dramatically.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St … se_Command

The United States Taiwan Defense Command was a sub-unified command of the United States armed forces. It was originally formed as the Formosa Liaison Center (founded in 1955 after the signature of the US-Taiwan Mutual Defense Pact of December 1954 and the first Straits crisis of Sept. 1954). In November 1955, the FLC become the Taiwan Defense Command. The command reported directly to the Commander-in-Chief Pacific (CINCPAC). The command was composed of personnel from all branches of the U.S. armed forces and had its headquarters in Taipei.

Check out this interesting blog about Taipei Air Station:
taipeiairstation.blogspot.tw/

This photo shows the “old” Taipei Air Station before any construction on the new Keelung Highway. Today, some of the old Taipei Air Station buildings are still in the NTU campus.

[hansioux]

@cybertai

General Sun was freed in 1988, a year after Chiang Ching-kuo’s death, when the Taiwan Government released a 1955 report that had cleared General Sun of involvement in the coup plot.

Isn’t it interesting that General Sun was only freed in 1988, when he was cleared of charges back in 1955?

Actually General Sun was accused of conspiring with one of his subordinates, Guo Tingliang (郭廷亮). The KMT tortured Guo, pressuring him to give up Sun’s name as a co-conspirator in the supposed “coup”, but Guo refused to admit to the coup and refused to give up General Sun’s name. So the bastards in charge of torturing him told him that General Sun already confessed to planning the “coup” and if Guo gave up Sun’s name, then the KMT would spare Sun’s life. Reluctantly Guo agreed to giving up Gerneral Sun’s name in order to save Sun’s life. By then Guo had been tortured for 10 days straight.

So it’s pretty obvious Chiang was after General Sun to begin with and they get to him the best way they know how, by torturing innocent people and then claim their hands were forced by traitors’ “confessions”.

Guo was at first sentenced to death, but since the “coup” was made up just to give Chiang an excuse to remove General Sun, they forced him to herd deer for life on Green Island. After Chiang Jr. passed away, Guo began to learn about the truth of what happened, and tried to advocate for General Sun’s freedom. The secret police pushed him off an moving train and killed him.

That’s what really went down, not the Chiang took pity on General Sun and spared his life crap.

[tommy525]

[quote=“hansioux”]There are at least two US official documents out there that spell out the US’ determination to keep Taiwan off of the hands of Chinese communist. Many within the National Security Council and US diplomats believed the only way to achieve that was to kick the KMT off the islands.

The first document is NSC’s Report by the National Security Council on the Current Position of the United States With Respect to Formosa

history.state.gov/historicaldoc … 49v09/d310

The other one is George Kennan’s United States Policy Toward Formosa and the Pescadores

history.state.gov/historicaldoc … 49v09/d402

Both documents have been released to the public.

The first document begins with

the U.S. should seek to develop and support a local non-Communist Chinese regime which will provide at least a modicum of decent government for the islands.

It points out that the Chiang regime at the time is considered as worse than just a modicum of decent government. That point is further elaborated on in the later parts of the document.

The U.S. has not been impressed by Chinese administration on the islands and believes that if there is continued misrule the Chinese authorities would inevitably forfeit the support of world opinion which might be expected to swing in favor of Formosan autonomy

It goes on to say

We should also use our influence wherever possible to discourage the further influx of mainland Chinese.

Showing that the US understands if Taiwan is to remain as part of the US’ island defence, the influx of Chinese refugees should be put to a stop. Finally, the NSC determines that autonomy from China should at least be entertained in case it proves useful to the US’ national interest.

The U.S. should also seek discreetly to maintain contact with potential native Formosan leaders with a view at some future date to being able to make use of a Formosan autonomous movement should it appear to be in the U.S. national interest to do so.

George Kennan went a step further and said

the only reasonably sure chance of denying Formosa and the Pescadores to the Communists and insulating the islands from mainland authority would lie in the removal of the present Nationalist administrators from the islands

What Kennan wanted to see instead was

the establishment of a provisional international or U.S. regime which would invoke the principle of self-determination for the islanders and would eventually, prior to a Japanese peace settlement, conduct a plebiscite to determine the ultimate disposition of Formosa and the Pescadores. Formosan separatism is the only concept which has sufficient grass-roots appeal to resist communism.

Two ways were proposed by Kennan to justify the removal of the KMT from Taiwan.

[quote]
a. One would be to induce other Far Eastern powers to take the lead in initiating international action to achieve the above purpose. (For purposes of illustration, I attach a paper outlining such a course of action, drafted on the assumption that this was the course we would wish to pursue.)

b. The other would be to announce a temporary unilateral [b]re-assertion of authority[/b] over the islands on the grounds that subsequent events had invalidated all the assumptions underlying the Cairo Declaration and that U.S. intervention was required by the interests of stability in the Pacific area as well as by the interests of the inhabitants of the islands.[/quote]

These proposals were benched after the outbreak of the Korean war in 1950.[/quote]

The US could have solved the whole problem way back then by giving Taiwan back to the Japanese.

[sofun]

@tommy525

The US could have solved the whole problem way back then by giving Taiwan back to the Japanese.

Actually it couldn’t do so without the cooperation from US military authorities. FRUS archive (declassified US Foreign Relations papers) shows that the US Department of State had already prepared a five-option-referendum plan for Formosa, but also cautioned that US military authorities’ cooperation was needed to remove 500 thousands Chinese Nationalist troops.

[hansioux]

[quote=“tommy525”]
The US could have solved the whole problem way back then by giving Taiwan back to the Japanese.[/quote]

or keep it as a military territory like they did with Guam, Palau, Okinawa and other wartime Japanese island territories in the Pacific.

[cybertai]

@sofun

[quote=“tommy525”]The US could have solved the whole problem way back then by giving Taiwan back to the Japanese.

Actually it couldn’t do so without the cooperation from US military authorities. FRUS archive (declassified US Foreign Relations papers) shows that the US Department of State had already prepared a five-option-referendum plan for Formosa, but also cautioned that US military authorities’ cooperation was needed to remove 500 thousands Chinese Nationalist troops.[/quote]

Without these “500 thousands Chinese Nationalist troops” (should be more), and of course, the US military to defend Taiwan, the RED army would easily take over Taiwan 1949~1970.

[Zhengzhou2010]

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“tommy525”]
The US could have solved the whole problem way back then by giving Taiwan back to the Japanese.[/quote]

or keep it as a military territory like they did with Guam, Palau, Okinawa and other wartime Japanese island territories in the Pacific.[/quote]

Those may have been theoretical possibilities but neither seems like it would have been a desirable outcome from my perspective. Okinawa is part of Japan today, but has always had a somewhat troubled relationship with the “home islands”; Guam is a non-sovereign “commonwealth” and Palau, while sovereign, is basically under a 1C2S system where the US handles defense and foreign affairs pursuant to the Compact of Free Association. Are these scenarios better than Taiwan’s current status (undesirable as it may be to many)?

[hansioux]

[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
Those may have been theoretical possibilities but neither seems like it would have been a desirable outcome from my perspective. Okinawa is part of Japan today, but has always had a somewhat troubled relationship with the “home islands”; Guam is a non-sovereign “commonwealth” and Palau, while sovereign, is basically under a 1C2S system where the US handles defense and foreign affairs pursuant to the Compact of Free Association. Are these scenarios better than Taiwan’s current status (undesirable as it may be to many)?[/quote]

All scenario would be better then being under constant military threat and not having a clear identity. Without the Chinese, Taiwan would also not have experienced systematic wiping out of Aboriginal and other native cultures.

Guam and Palau were all allowed self-determination and chose to become what they are today. Guam voted back in January 12, 1982, and may choose to change its relationship with the US in the future via another referendum.

[sofun]

@cybertai

[quote=“sofun”][quote=“tommy525”]The US could have solved the whole problem way back then by giving Taiwan back to the Japanese.

Actually it couldn’t do so without the cooperation from US military authorities. FRUS archive (declassified US Foreign Relations papers) shows that the US Department of State had already prepared a five-option-referendum plan for Formosa, but also cautioned that US military authorities’ cooperation was needed to remove 500 thousands Chinese Nationalist troops.[/quote]

Without these “500 thousands Chinese Nationalist troops” (should be more), and of course, the US military to defend Taiwan, the RED army would easily take over Taiwan 1949~1970.[/quote]

Actually the report said it was 350 thousands. I don’t think the Chinese Communist would overrun Taiwan. The didn’t have the vessels needed to transport troops.
Plus the KMT had no real fighting ability nor discipline nor will, whereas the Formosan had all 3.

[Zhengzhou2010]

I’m a little torn in my views on this matter. While I agree that the “status quo” is a lousy place for Taiwan and ultimately corrosive to the long term welfare of the Taiwanese people, I don’t believe that the noted alternatives would have been better.

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
Those may have been theoretical possibilities but neither seems like it would have been a desirable outcome from my perspective. Okinawa is part of Japan today, but has always had a somewhat troubled relationship with the “home islands”; Guam is a non-sovereign “commonwealth” and Palau, while sovereign, is basically under a 1C2S system where the US handles defense and foreign affairs pursuant to the Compact of Free Association. Are these scenarios better than Taiwan’s current status (undesirable as it may be to many)?[/quote]

All scenario would be better then being under constant military threat and not having a clear identity. [/quote]

Those are clearly important factors. But my preferred outcome (and I know there are very few here who share my views) of unification with the PRC would also give the Taiwanese a clear national identity (as Chinese and PRC citizens). As Taiwan would be unified, there wouldn’t be the military threat from China anymore either. Although admittedly there could still be the risk of military threat from the PLA or Chinese security forces engaging in domestic actions to massacre civilians and suppress dissent (not that a Chinese government taking over Taiwan has ever done that before . . .)

@hansioux

Without the Chinese, Taiwan would also not have experienced systematic wiping out of Aboriginal and other native cultures.

Certainly , but this is a shared guilt. Aboriginal cultures have been negatively impacted by the “Chinese” be they of BSR or WSR backgrounds. Given the electoral strength the KMT continues to have in Aboriginal designated electoral positions, there is some evidence that the Aboriginals themselves have made peace with the latest form of “wiping out.” It is surprising to me, but one cannot help how people feel. Moreover, the Japanese certainly also bear responsibility for diminishing Aboriginal culture and society. I don’t know enough of what impact the Dutch and Spaniards may have had, although their impact was probably more limited given their shorter and lesser dominion.

[quote=“hansioux”]
Guam and Palau were all allowed self-determination and chose to become what they are today. Guam voted back in January 12, 1982, and may choose to change its relationship with the US in the future via another referendum.[/quote]

Yes, and the Philippines (with a different history) also became independent. I could be wrong but I think that Okinawa had no such choice for self-determination. It is an interesting speculation whether Taiwan would have had the same route as Okinawa and Hawaii or Guam. I’ll give some further thought to this.

[hansioux]

@Zhengzhou2010

Although admittedly there could still be the risk of military threat from the PLA or Chinese security forces engaging in domestic actions to massacre civilians and suppress dissent (not that a Chinese government taking over Taiwan has ever done that before . . .)

Precisely why other alternatives are way better.

@Zhengzhou2010

Given the electoral strength the KMT continues to have in Aboriginal designated electoral positions, there is some evidence that the Aboriginals themselves have made peace with the latest form of “wiping out.”

That interpretation is too simplistic. It’s like saying those Latinos, Poor whites and African Americans who vote for the Republicans and especially planning to vote for Trump are fine with being marginalized.

[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
Moreover, the Japanese certainly also bear responsibility for diminishing Aboriginal culture and society. I don’t know enough of what impact the Dutch and Spaniards may have had, although their impact was probably more limited given their shorter and lesser dominion. [/quote]

No one is arguing about the facts that colonialists committed a lot of wrongs. Though, we are talking alternatives for Taiwan immediately post WW2. The governments of Japan and the US weren’t exactly encouraging the conservation of native languages elsewhere immediately post WW2, however, they certainly weren’t engaged in systematically wiping out native languages either.

[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
Yes, and the Philippines (with a different history) also became independent. I could be wrong but I think that Okinawa had no such choice for self-determination. It is an interesting speculation whether Taiwan would have had the same route as Okinawa and Hawaii or Guam. I’ll give some further thought to this.[/quote]

In the 60s and the 70s, supporters of Okinawa Independence used returning to Japan as their rally call, and they got what they asked for without needing a referendum.

[the_bear]

"Given the electoral strength the KMT continues to have in Aboriginal designated electoral positions, there is some evidence that the Aboriginals themselves have made peace with the latest form of “wiping out.” "

The KMTs strength only comes about because the KMT buys the ward chiefs who in turn buy the voters. No one genuinely believes any informed indigenous voter would ever willingly support the KMT. The consistent 90+% support of the KMT by the indigenous vote is a running joke in Taiwanese politics.

[Zhengzhou2010]

@hansioux

[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”] Although admittedly there could still be the risk of military threat from the PLA or Chinese security forces engaging in domestic actions to massacre civilians and suppress dissent (not that a Chinese government taking over Taiwan has ever done that before . . .)

Precisely why other alternatives are way better. [/quote]

The other alternatives, however, would not have meant an absence of military threat from China, though. Korea and Western Europe remain garrisoned by the US military because of external threats - a continuing US force in Taiwan might have been the end result of any of the imagined scenarios. Perhaps a US force would be preferable for many than the PLA, but the US presence could also have made Taiwan more of a tension point as well. And while I think that US troops generally conduct themselves in a disciplined, martial and honorable manner, the legacy of US military behavior outside of Europe generally, and in Asian countries specifically, has not been free of controversy either.

@hansioux

[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]Given the electoral strength the KMT continues to have in Aboriginal designated electoral positions, there is some evidence that the Aboriginals themselves have made peace with the latest form of “wiping out.”

That interpretation is too simplistic. It’s like saying Latinos, Poor whites and African Americans who votes for the Republicans and especially planning to vote for Trump are fine with being marginalized. [/quote]

I don’t think it is “simplistic” at all. Votes can and should have consequences. The alternative is disenfranchisement or some kind of condescending neo-colonialism where someone gets to pick-up what is really good for the Aboriginals (because someone needs to look after them). Kinda like “Han-splaining” in place of “mansplaining” (not a dig at hansioux, but rather at the majority Han, or those who so identify).

I’m not sure where you are going with the Republican/Trump analogy . . . what I see is a party and a candidate that seem to espouse views which white American voters, especially the working class, finding favorable. In Trump’s eye the decline of the white working class is because of Mexican immigrants, Muslim terrorists, unfair Chinese industrialists, Latino judges, educated women and countless others (collectively, “Them”) and if an American leader would just get tough and stand-up for what’s right then wealth, power, prominence, jobs, respect and prosperity would again flow to the rightful American ruling majority. This message seems to resonate with a significant part of the White American electorate and is off-putting to most of the minority (and a sizeable part of the women’s) electorate as well. This is exactly my point - people vote for the parties/candidates that they think will benefit them and that espouse a worldview they find comfortable. Why should Taiwan be different. What is a better alternative than listening to the votes of a community?

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
Moreover, the Japanese certainly also bear responsibility for diminishing Aboriginal culture and society. I don’t know enough of what impact the Dutch and Spaniards may have had, although their impact was probably more limited given their shorter and lesser dominion. [/quote]

No one is arguing about the facts that colonialists committed a lot of wrongs. Though, we are talking alternatives for Taiwan immediately post WW2. The governments of Japan and the US weren’t exactly encouraging the conservation of native languages elsewhere immediately post WW2, however, they certainly weren’t engaged in systematically wiping out native languages either.[/quote]

You know I’m no fan of the KMT, and I regard their repression of languages other than Mandarin as one of their greatest displays of ethnic bigotry and prejudice. But the KMT did not come upon a tabula rasa when it came to Aboriginal languages - they were fairly endangered already, I think. And if the Hoklo super-majority hasn’t been able to find it within themselves to make preserving their language a priority, I can easily see why for the Aboriginals (and maybe the Hakka) that this just isn’t that important.

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
Yes, and the Philippines (with a different history) also became independent. I could be wrong but I think that Okinawa had no such choice for self-determination. It is an interesting speculation whether Taiwan would have had the same route as Okinawa and Hawaii or Guam. I’ll give some further thought to this.[/quote]

In the 60s and the 70s, supporters of Okinawa Independence used returning to Japan as their rally call, and they got what they asked for without needing a referendum.[/quote]

Interesting, so “Okinawa Independence” really was a call for Japanese Irredentism . . . I’m sure that would make the Chinese ethno-imperialists go even more bananas when they think about TI if they were to hear about the Okinawa precedent.

[hansioux]

[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
I’m not sure where you are going with the Republican/Trump analogy . . . what I see is a party and a candidate that seem to espouse views which white American voters, especially the working class, finding favorable. In Trump’s eye the decline of the white working class is because of Mexican immigrants, Muslim terrorists, unfair Chinese industrialists, Latino judges, educated women and countless others (collectively, “Them”) and if an American leader would just get tough and stand-up for what’s right then wealth, power, prominence, jobs, respect and prosperity would again flow to the rightful American ruling majority. This message seems to resonate with a significant part of the White American electorate and is off-putting to most of the minority (and a sizeable part of the women’s) electorate as well. This is exactly my point - people vote for the parties/candidates that they think will benefit them and that espouse a worldview they find comfortable. Why should Taiwan be different. What is a better alternative than listening to the votes of a community? [/quote]

The problem is Trump’s and the Republicans’ policies aren’t favorable to poor or working class whites. Trump himself said in a New York Times Maureen Dowd interview:

''My entire life, I’ve watched politicians bragging about how poor they are, how they came from nothing, how poor their parents and grandparents were. And I said to myself, if they can stay so poor for so many generations, maybe this isn’t the kind of person we want to be electing to higher office, how smart can they be? They’re morons."

That’s his honest opinion of the poor, when he is not putting on an act and pandering to working class or the poor. It has nothing to do with immigrants or religion. Those poor whites, Latinos and African Americans who are voting for the Republicans and Trump aren’t really voting for him because of his policies or his rhetoric that marginalizes them. Trump and the Republican party are appealing to them with something else that they find more important than his actual policies, be it religion, family values, personal branding or something else.

KMT is doing the same thing. If you read some of the Aboriginal youth trying to explain why so few Aboriginal people vote and why the majority of those who do vote KMT, you’d see it’s a lot more complicated.

[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
You know I’m no fan of the KMT, and I regard their repression of languages other than Mandarin as one of their greatest displays of ethnic bigotry and prejudice. But the KMT did not come upon a tabula rasa when it came to Aboriginal languages - they were fairly endangered already, I think.[/quote]

Not true. Aboriginal languages only became endangered due to KMT’s policies. By the end of the Japanese rule, they have only imposed Japanese on the Aboriginals for 4 years. As such, except for the flatland tribes where had to hide their own identities to avoid Han Chinese cultural and economic discriminations, most Aboriginals were still fluent in their own languages. The KMT however forbade the use and teaching of Aboriginal languages. Foreign missions were threated with jail time if they preach in Aboriginal languages, and all Aboriginal texted Bibles were confiscated.

[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
And if the Hoklo super-majority hasn’t been able to find it within themselves to make preserving their language a priority, I can easily see why for the Aboriginals (and maybe the Hakka) that this just isn’t that important. [/quote]

I don’t think blaming the minority for the loss of their languages is the complete view of what happens under colonial oppression.

[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
Interesting, so “Okinawa Independence” really was a call for Japanese Irredentism . . . I’m sure that would make the Chinese ethno-imperialists go even more bananas when they think about TI if they were to hear about the Okinawa precedent.[/quote]

Native Okinawans suffered great losses during WW2. Most people are pragmatists, and to them reversion to be under Japanese rule is more attainable at the time. Much like TI movements will first try to work within the system, and will only use more extreme methods when all routes within the system are closed to them.

[tempogain]

[quote=“the bear”]"Given the electoral strength the KMT continues to have in Aboriginal designated electoral positions, there is some evidence that the Aboriginals themselves have made peace with the latest form of “wiping out.” "

The KMTs strength only comes about because the KMT buys the ward chiefs who in turn buy the voters. No one genuinely believes any informed indigenous voter would ever willingly support the KMT. The consistent 90+% support of the KMT by the indigenous vote is a running joke in Taiwanese politics.[/quote]

I thought it was basically an “enemy of my enemy” type situation, better to have guys in Taipei in charge then the assholes around the corner (so to speak).