How about “Taiwan History” 台灣通史 by 字雅堂. Goes from the Dutch to modern times.
ac_dropout,
You seem to have missed the name. That would actually be Lien Heng, Lien Chan’s grandfather and coiner of the phrase, “Taiwan has no history.”
I have read that and it smacks of Han chauvinism. This is one of the books the Japanese used to understand Taiwan and thus many of the opinions of the Japanese were influenced by a well to do Han elite with a Han bias and a loyalty to the Qing.
I picked that up at the Ketagalon Center (not the institute), where the directors have taken a paternalistic view of aborigines. If I can remember the literature correctly, “The Atayal are quick learners and are trying to modernize.” “The Yami are atheletic but still very primitive…”
I saw the placement of Lien Heng’s book in the center as a nod to Lien Chan. After all, the Ketagalon Center is run by the Taipei city government.
maowang,
Uhm everyone on Taiwan besides the aboriginal are 漢 (han).
Unless you are talking about those 幹 (han). I hear they can be quite aggressive and nationalistic at times.
It is a good recommended read for those who can read it to see how Chinese literate people views on their own history.
That is quite an essentialist and exclusive statement based on assumtions .
Example: I was conducting a survey in Yun Lin County at a site I felt may be short route Han. After conducting several interviews, and discovering 80 children in the town of mixed Vietnamese, Han, Hoanya and Indonesian heritage, I saw a structure that looked like a giant, woven basket with a pitched roof. I recognized it from Gazetteer renderings as a possible Austronesian design.
After confering with NTU Anthropology department, they concluded the structure was a rice storage facility used by “Minnan” farmers in Yun Lin.
I then asked why Minnan farmers would only use the structure in Yun Lin and if similar structures could be found in Fujian. After consultation with various departments, it was concluded that the structure is actually a rice storage building of austronesian design and the location was probably a Hoanya village.
The assumtion that all on Taiwan is Han does not take into account ethnic and class mixing that, although the aborigines entered Han, they brought with them many non-han ideas, beliefs, technologies and systems that, until recently have been classified as Han to conform with the Chinese national narrative of the KMT regime.
I encourage everyone to read our debate on “Chinese” in the Open Forum and you may see ac’s slant on this. Now lets get back to books.
Maowang,
Unlike the neo-Taiwanese culture, which is trying its best to be inclusive.
The Han culture has never been xenophobic or inclusive; that is why there is Han Hua (Sinocization). So yes the Han can wear western clothing and use foriegn technology yet still be uniquly Chinese Han.
Yes you argument of a net zero Taiwanese or Chinese identity is quite amusing to say the least. Unfortunately for you, your argument is contradicted by the Overseas Chinese population in Singapore, HK, HaiNanDoa, Philippines, Malaysia, Indoneasia and Hawaii. We still consider ourselves Chinese.
Your only argument is to state that Taiwan could go the route of Vietnam distance themselve from everything Chinese through another 50 years. But a vast portion of Taiwan population are not yet ready to give up their Chinese identity. In fact, they are upset that they have an additional “Taiwan” culture cirriculum added onto their current acedemic cirriculum.
Your debating in a soft science. Nothing is an absolute in area of soft science.
The book was written not about politics but Taiwan history. It is a very good book.
You’ve got to be kidding.
Chinese nationalists…huh! The dreams they dream.
Books was it? Ummmm
Off the top of my head…
???