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

That’s what people say now, however I suspect that’s a KMT constructed sentiment.

Early Han Chinese civilians were very oppressive to the flatland tribes, but had little interaction with those who have official Aboriginal status today. Most of them had interactions with the Qing government. For example, Pangcah (Amis) men of Makotaay, Dafdaf villages were massacred by the Qing government after Qing soldiers failed to gain access through their villages. Qing general Wu Guangliang then set up a feast and invited the men over for a truce, then killed them all afterwards. However, those events had little to do with Han civilians.

The only existing tribes that would have a beef with early Han immigrants are the Ita Thao, Saisiyat and Altayal where Han civilians established militias to contain them. However, they mostly had interactions with the Hakka and not the Holo.

There’s little evidence that those with Aboriginal status today had much conflict with Early Immigrants during the Japanese era either, and after the KMT took over Taiwan, most Taiwanese rebellions saw Early Immigrants working together with the Aboriginals.

During the 228 incident, Tsou leaders Uyongʉ’e Yatauyungana and Yapasuyongʉ Yulunana formed Aboriginal militias that cooperated with Han militias to maintain peace in Jiayi city, and blockade Shuishang airport. They were both killed by the KMT during the subsequent White Terror era.

Even aboriginals who had nothing to do with armed militias during 228 were killed by the KMT during the White Terror era. The most famous is Altayal Medical Doctor Losing Watan, who was a member in the Provincial parliament. Others like Truku leader Walis Wumi who was adamantly against Japanese rule and celebrated the arrival of KMT was also killed by the KMT.

During the 1970 Taiyuan prison rebellion, political prisoners, mostly Holo early Han immigrants, also coordinated with local Aboriginals in a planned armed uprising against the KMT.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiyuan_Incident

After the establishment of the KMT dictatorship all the way till today, any discrimination or oppression suffered by the Aboriginal people is either caused by the government or all Han ethnicities as a whole. If Aboriginals today dislike ethnic Han buying their land, making fun of their names, disrespecting their traditions, it’s on all 3 Han ethnicities. I am not saying that a certain Han ethnic group didn’t practice ethnic discrimination. I am saying all of them were and still are equally responsible for the hardship that the Aboriginal people suffered due to Chinese colonialism.

So why the particular animosity towards Holo? There’s no explanation at least from a historical context. Some Aboriginal youth suggested during the last election cycle that since there are more interactions with the Hakka and Late Immigrants (serving as overlords), Hakka and Late Immigrant opinions of Holo rubbed off on newer generations of Aboriginals.

[quote=“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. . . [/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:

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. [/quote]

I think you are too casually dismissing the appeal of his economic populism - cutting off immigrant labor, opposing “unfair” trade deals, enacting tarriffs and such are appeals to the working class. I would agree that his other “appeals” on religion, family value and branding and such are strong factors as well - but as a whole they are more attractive and reflective of cultural norms and values in White America - and it is White America that votes for him most heavily.

Ok, I haven’t read much of what aboriginals think and would appreciate any recommendations you could share. That being said, in a democracy who you vote for counts. And if the KMT is the lesser of two evils for the aboriginal community for the last 20+ years, the DPP needs to rethink its approach.

[quote=“hansioux”][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]

The mountain aborigines may have kept large parts of their language, but the assimilation (cultural annihilation) of the lowland tribes and the occupation of most of the island by Hoklo and Hakka certainly had detrimental impacts to the overall cultural and linguistic ecosystems of the various aboriginal communities. Linguistic and cultural vibrancy is not solely about language policy. There must be a viable community upon which such languages can prosper.

[quote=“hansioux”][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]

I am not “blaming” anyone, and the Hoklo are certainly not a minority. I’m offering an alternative view that treats aboriginals (and others) as adults and credits their actions to rationality. Yes, the KMT bears the heaviest blame, but the Hoklo, Hakka and Aboriginal communities are not powerless - they could easily vote to place their heritage languages as peers with Mandarin if the issue was important enough to them.

When it comes to Aboriginal communities, I think the DPP could try to find common ground on some issues advanced by KMT Aboriginal legislators like May Chin’s recent proposal to expand the transitional justice bill to cover historic mistreatment of the aboriginal community.

chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/nati … ignore.htm

Her proposal to remove the Ruifang memorial to Japanese stoldiers who killed aboriginals seems quite reasonable to me. More cynically, one could imagine the political fun a DPP/NPP legislator could have by endorsing her views on this point - “I strongly concur and agree with my esteemed colleague May Chin regarding the need to expand our view of transitional justice to include Aboriginal communities, including through the removal of the Ruifang Memorial. Thus in the spirit of bipartisanship, I warmly welcome and encourage Ms. Chin, other representatives of the aboriginal community, and all LY members to co-sponsor and support my amendment which would require the removal or renaming of all memorials and public place names which commemorate any persons who carried out, lead or were otherwise responsible for any massacres, killings or other oppression of the aboriginal or other Taiwanese communities. I thank Ms. Chin for her valuable contributions and would name this the May Chin Amendment.”

On a side note, the last two sentences of the China Post article are a darkly comedic gem.

[quote]Regarding nuclear waste, Kao Chin demanded the government vow to remove radioactive material from Orchid Island, angrily suggesting that it be stored under the Economic Affairs Ministry, Executive Yuan and Taipower buildings.

The government was unreceptive to the idea.[/quote]

I’m (a little) ashamed that I laughed out loud about a story involving nuclear waste and environmental racism, but the unexpected comedic timing (gotta be intentional) through me off (especially coming from a Taiwanese newspaper article in English).

[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]

[quote=“hansioux”]
I don’t think blaming the minority for the loss of their languages is the complete view of what happens under colonial oppression. [/quote]

I am not “blaming” anyone, and the Hoklo are certainly not a minority. [/quote]

In politics minority is defined as “a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment.” A minority group doesn’t have to form a smaller portion of the population. During KMT’s oppressive dictatorship, which actively sought out to purge all native languages, Holo is certainly a minority group in Taiwan’s political scheme.

[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
Her proposal to remove the Ruifang memorial to Japanese stoldiers who killed aboriginals seems quite reasonable to me. [/quote]

There are many such Japanese era memorials, and no one here in Taiwan is actually memorializing over the death of those Japanese police or troops. These memorials serve as a testament to the way Japanese oppressed the people of this island. Removing them would be an opportunity missed. Instead, they should have accompanying memorials that points out how these memorials stands as a proof to how the Japanese oppressed and massacred Taiwanese people.

[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]

I’ve been saying that for ages. In fact why not just place it under CKS memorial hall?

The easiest explanation would be that Hoklo have appropriated the term “Taiwanese” for themselves while at the same time stereotype aboriginal people. When the people who bear the historical responsibility for the near-extinction of Taiwanese aboriginal culture call themselves 本土台灣人 and have a mainstream definition of Taiwanese culture that only includes aboriginals on a side-note as drunk lowlifes or exceptional singers and dancers, it is easy to see what makes Hoklo so unpopular among aboriginals. Again, I am not saying the KMT has treated aboriginal people with more dignity, but the dimension of appropriation seems to be absent.

taipeitimes.com/News/front/a … 2003648719

To add another interesting dimension to Aboriginal issues and identity . . . A story about China’s reported rescission of a planned tour in China by the Aboriginal children’s choir that performed the ROC National Anthem at TIW’s inauguration. While I am China-friendly, if the story is true, this is really petty and unbecoming. Whoever XJP has advising on Taiwan policy has got to be absolutely clueless . . .

[quote=“hsinhai78”]
The easiest explanation would be that Hoklo have appropriated the term “Taiwanese” for themselves while at the same time stereotype aboriginal people. When the people who bear the historical responsibility for the near-extinction of Taiwanese aboriginal culture call themselves 本土台灣人 and have a mainstream definition of Taiwanese culture that only includes aboriginals on a side-note as drunk lowlifes or exceptional singers and dancers, it is easy to see what makes Hoklo so unpopular among aboriginals. Again, I am not saying the KMT has treated aboriginal people with more dignity, but the dimension of appropriation seems to be absent.[/quote]

Yeah, the KMT just wanted to wipe out all “Taiwanese” identity, labeled the Aboriginals a Chinese Minority, forbidden the use of Aboriginal languages in public, education and church. What’s to dislike, right?

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“hsinhai78”]
The easiest explanation would be that Hoklo have appropriated the term “Taiwanese” for themselves while at the same time stereotype aboriginal people. When the people who bear the historical responsibility for the near-extinction of Taiwanese aboriginal culture call themselves 本土台灣人 and have a mainstream definition of Taiwanese culture that only includes aboriginals on a side-note as drunk lowlifes or exceptional singers and dancers, it is easy to see what makes Hoklo so unpopular among aboriginals. Again, I am not saying the KMT has treated aboriginal people with more dignity, but the dimension of appropriation seems to be absent.[/quote]

Yeah, the KMT just wanted to wipe out all “Taiwanese” identity, labeled the Aboriginals a Chinese Minority, forbidden the use of Aboriginal languages in public, education and church. What’s to dislike, right?[/quote]

In 1945 Taiwanese aboriginals were for the first time citizens with the same rights and responsibilities as Hoklo people. Equality is dignity and whereas the average black South African is not necessarily better off under the ANC, being equal is what matters. You can spin this whichever way you want, but aboriginal voting behaviour shows a consistent dislike of the DPP. And you better not blame this on the KMT buying aboriginal votes with a few hundred NT$ and a bottle of rice wine - because that is exactly the blue-slipper-chauvinism that led to the holocaust perpetrated by Hoklo collaborators and the Japanese.

[quote=“hsinhai78”][quote=“hansioux”]
Yeah, the KMT just wanted to wipe out all “Taiwanese” identity, labeled the Aboriginals a Chinese Minority, forbidden the use of Aboriginal languages in public, education and church. What’s to dislike, right?[/quote]

In 1945 Taiwanese aboriginals were for the first time citizens with the same rights and responsibilities as Hoklo people. Equality is dignity and whereas the average black South African is not necessarily better off under the ANC, being equal is what matters. You can spin this whichever way you want, but aboriginal voting behaviour shows a consistent dislike of the DPP. And you better not blame this on the KMT buying aboriginal votes with a few hundred NT$ and a bottle of rice wine - because that is exactly the blue-slipper-chauvinism that led to the holocaust perpetrated by Hoklo collaborators and the Japanese.[/quote]

First, the first time Holo people and Aboriginals of this island were considered equals by a foreign government was when the Dutch introduced Coolies to Taiwan. That was followed by the Japanese.

Second, you sound as if that equally oppressing Holo and Aboriginals justifies the things that the KMT did. What’s really worth commemorating is the 1996 election, when all people of Taiwan were equals in terms of each person having the same amount of say in deciding Taiwan’s future. What’s left to do is give Aboriginals the autonomy and allow all ethnicities to revitalize Taiwan’s native cultures.

Third, I’ll stop blaming the KMT’s vote buying when the KMT stops buying votes. If vote buying doesn’t work, then KMT wouldn’t waste their money buying them. It’s as simple as that.

By the way, Chien Tung-ming, ethnic Paiwan KMT lawmaker and his wife indicted for alleged vote-buying 2016/03/17
focustaiwan.tw/news/AIPL/201603170008.aspx

Hopefully this kind of election fraud, which is really just another way of oppression, stops in the next election after the passing of the Party Assets Act.