Is Foguangshan Master Hsing Yun's vision failing?

Politics Taiwan Politics
41

[quote=“goingstrong”]Oh, you’re saying the non-TI supporters and pro-China people do WANT to be part of TI? I seeee… :whistle:

Is not Canadian English a sublet of British English? American English a sublet of British English? Autralian/New Zealand English a sublet of British English? =_=

Aiye… The brick wall is still talking! :doh: Ruuun![/quote]
I didn’t mention anything about UK, Commonwealth, or former colonies. I’m pretty well versed in Chinese history and culture, so I don’t need to extract from western history or social constructs to understand the situation. Only foreigners need to use western history to understand the current situation, most Taiwanese can look up any number of inter-Han conflicts in Chinese history to describe the current situation.

But if I must dumb down the conversation for foreigners. The great distinction is that there has never been a final military conflict to settle the territorial dispute, and PRC is not weak enough nor far enough to walk away from their claim on Taiwan since it is economically feasible for them to maintain their current position.

Well actually the brick wall are TI supporters and TI. Notice the DPP neo-nativism position. It is basically stating that localization definition was too narrow, that Taiwanese need to have a broader definition.

The largest tribal identity in Taiwan is Chinese, which already exist and is pretty well established. Kind of difficult to displace an identity that is 5,000 years old, and been on Taiwan for 400 years, with just 20 years of DPP “localization” arguments.

But don’t take my word that TI and Taiwanese Identity is a flawed platform, but then again the party I supported isn’t on the fringe of Taiwan politics either.

42

[quote=“ac_dropout”]
I didn’t mention anything about UK, Commonwealth, or former colonies. I’m pretty well versed in Chinese history and culture, so I don’t need to extract from western history or social constructs to understand the situation. Only foreigners need to use western history to understand the current situation, most Taiwanese can look up any number of inter-Han conflicts in Chinese history to describe the current situation.[/quote]
Mmm… No thanks. China is stuck in its long history…

[quote]
But if I must dumb down the conversation for foreigners. The great distinction is that there has never been a final military conflict to settle the territorial dispute, and PRC is not weak enough nor far enough to walk away from their claim on Taiwan since it is economically feasible for them to maintain their current position.

Well actually the brick wall are TI supporters and TI. Notice the DPP neo-nativism position. It is basically stating that localization definition was too narrow, that Taiwanese need to have a broader definition.

The largest tribal identity in Taiwan is Chinese, which already exist and is pretty well established. Kind of difficult to displace an identity that is 5,000 years old, and been on Taiwan for 400 years, with just 20 years of DPP “localization” arguments.

But don’t take my word that TI and Taiwanese Identity is a flawed platform, but then again the party I supported isn’t on the fringe of Taiwan politics either.[/quote]
:roflmao: Yep, the brick wall definitely doesn’t get it when I refer to European colonization. G’day sir. salutes

43

Common, according to you, there should be only a handful of countries in the world, cause all share the same ethnicity (even if they have different cultures).

But let us start with the fact that about 73.5% of the population in Taiwan are Hoklo. For sure, in any democracy in the world, Hoklo would be the dominant force in Taiwan, if Hoklo where “racist”. They just need to vote on people of their own ethnicity and there you go - big majority. All the rest can be happy with scraps. But no, we got a president which is from one minority, are rulled by people from that minority, and these people control, as they did for decades, most of the establishment in Taiwan, from farms to temples. When it is like that, people (like my fater-in-law) just votes for the ones he knows will give him more benefits (we are not talking about building stuff or welfare… we are talking of cash and guanxi). He then goes and tries to convince everyone around him that the one they should vote for is the one he gets “access” to. Repeat this by a thousand, and you get the reason why the KMT gets elected.

Nobody votes KMT because they are better, they vote KMT because they have established access to the people they are voting for, and dont want “new blood” runing the place. It remembers me the story of how this mayor of Yilan was elected - there was a rumor on the public offices that there was going to be a reduction on public servants, and that promotions would be more related to performance than to guanxi. This made pratically all public servants KMT supporters… There was also the rumor about the old mayor being corrupt to the bone (and the true fact is that he was seen as one of the cleanest politicians in Taiwan, even by the KMT).

44

mr_boogie,

I haven’t said anything about States and their ethnic compositions. I have been criticizing the DPP localization platform being intertwine with TI. There is a conflict with their “idealized” Taiwanese, to mean everyone that supporters TI in Taiwan, with the “coloquial” Taiwanese, which means anyone who is Hoklofied in Taiwan, primary Minnan speakers.

If you want to discuss the inner working of politics in a working democracy, my understanding of why MYJ is president, is similar to why Obama is president. The previous president of their respective States, being from the majority, screwed up their countries so bad by leading their country from the perspective of entitlement, that it allowed for an opportunity for a minority member to take office, because the public was fed up with the ruling party.

I followed the Yilan elections, since that is my hometown. My opinion is that the DPP were kind of silly to declare a victory because they lost by a smaller margin than originally predicted. Doesn’t that illustrate how out of touch the DPP has been recently, when they go around declaring victory after an election lost?

From my personal experience of being able to take on the cultural identities of American, Chinese, Cantonese, Taiwanese; it is only among the DPP TI supporting Taiwanese, that being Taiwanese and not supporting TI is an issue. To them it is difficult for them to accept that some Taiwanese don’t share their political views. Like your value judgement of the KMT party in Yilan, as if there is something wrong with voting out of self interest. That’s how a democracy functions.

Like I said no American judges me as more or less American for my various political view on Hawaii Independence or PR independence. No Cantonese judges my claim to Cantonese based my position on political “freedom fighter” Long Hair. No Chinese judges my claim to Chinese based on my political views.

But the Taiwanese TI supporters, often claiming that they are the keepers of the Taiwanese identity, will pass judgement on other Taiwanese depending on how much they support TI. And in my opinion that is a major flaw, because that is not how a democracy functions. So even if Taiwan was 100% Taiwanese, we’re all suppose to support TI?

Which is why I see where Master Hsing Yun is coming from. He’s basically saying he disagrees with TI and their localization claims of Taiwanese must support TI.

45

I think that his claims are quite not those ones. His claims are that all Taiwanese are Chinese, and should accept that, and should accept unification for the sake of a greater cause. Which is completely stupid IMO.

Taiwanese voted for the DPP for 2 consecutive turns, and if it wasn’t for the massive investment of the media in MYJ, he would never had been more than Taipei Mayor (let’s face it, Taipei is not better than it was before him, except for the natural evolution that occurs in a city over the years). The media portrayed MYJ as the saviour, and people bought it. That is a simple as that. Just like people bought Obama can be the saviour of US, but when time comes, his choices are being pretty much the same of MYJ (oh please, please, CCP, save our asses!!). That and being surrounded with people full of interests in China, doesn’t help neither the US nor Taiwan.

As for Yilan, I live here, and have contact with the local politicians (hey, they are family, cannot just throw them out of the door). So I know what made the KMT win here, and what is going on in the town (my street is open for the 6th time since the KMT mayor is on, and I dare you overspeed on it). This guy has done shit for the town (maybe with the exception of adding one more floor to the project of Luna Plaza (only god knows why it needs), putting ROC flags all around town after Chen’s visit and getting the Taiwan Lantern Festival this year in an area that lacks any capability to receive more than 1000 people at the same time.

46

I don’t think he was trying to make a political statement. Only TI supporters are finding his comment out of line, because it negates TI and localization.

So you don’t think DPP corruption and Taiwanese entitlement aggenda, turned the public against the DPP? CSB appointees could never beat MYJ at the polls. He lost the mayorship of Taipei and the Presidency of ROC to him. Seems like CSB just couldn’t beat him…

Is that really anything to brag about online? :laughing:

47

I don’t know if living in Yilan is something I brag about, but all people I know also want to come live in this area, as it is much less poluted than Taipei. Some of the Yilan schools are also renowned, and, generally speaking, food is much better out here.

As for you being a native from Yilan, I guess you love it as much as Taiwan (claiming that living in Yilan should be nothing to brag about). If only Yilan was in the middle of China…

48

Wrong - you got it completely backwards. Since the US is a country of immigration like Taiwan, an American equivalent example would be 'Europeanising" the US - saying that the US cannot have a separate identity and should be a part of the EU since “there are no people in the US who are not European”.

49

Wrong - you got it completely backwards. Since the US is a country of immigration like Taiwan, an American equivalent example would be 'Europeanising" the US - saying that the US cannot have a separate identity and should be a part of the EU since “there are no people in the US who are not European”.[/quote]

Using your example, most people agree, that the acculturation process that altered American culture from European culture, was more organic, and not dictated by a major political party. A case in point, most European languages of the original settlers are no longer spoken. Dutch and German are dead languages in the USA (unless you’re still driving a horse and buggy in the US). There is no push by descendents of these immigrants to make Dutch or German a language equal in status to English (not that it is neccessary, since diversity tolerance is a hallmark of American culture).

In fact, the USA routinely goes through cycles where nativist promoting xenophobic policies are shouted down and pushed aside in politics.

Now in Taiwan, most people would agree the acculturation of Ming Chinese immigrant culture by post WWII Chinese immigrant culture, was not as significant. In fact, most ROC university graduate choose to start their careers in the PRC, because the assimilation process is easier compared to coming to the US.

So with the lack of significant distinction, on top of the fact Chinese culture accept emmigrant identities; such as Singaporean Chinese, Malay Chinese, Oversea Chinese, the acculturation process the DPP promotes as “localization” that everyone in Taiwan should assimilate to, seem not to be very pragmatic nor realistic.

Just by renaming a form of Chinese assimilation from “Sinification” to “Taiwanization” doesn’t make it any different. You know like renaming “Chinese Petroleum Corporation” to “Taiwan Petroleum Corporation” doesn’t change the molecular structure of Petroleum nor the business operation of delivering Petroleum to Taiwan.

50

But it does alter the percepcion of things. I wonder how many “Chinese” bosses in Taiwan will put a “Made in the Republic of China” tag? How that would alter the perception of the product? Would it become more appealing or not?

And flying China Airlines (well, their level is pretty much on par with the Chinese airlines anyway)? If it was called Taiwan Airlines, probably people would give it more value, even if it is only perception value. My first trip to Taiwan was on a CI flight, and it was also my first big flight, and I hated it. It was more confortable to do a 28hr trip in a bus from Portugal to Luxembourg, I can tell you.

How much does a company loose in value just because they are Chinese? For me, it is quite a lot… And even if they are not Chinese, but because they have China on their name, they also loose value. That is why I avoid putting gas at CPC stations.

51

I’d say that the definition of Taiwanese could reasonably be anyone born in Taiwan, or who has lived here from a very early age, and is a member of a “digestible” ethnic group, i.e. someone Chinese people traditionally have accepted, such as Han, Hui, Tibetan, Mongolian, Manchu or Indigenous people from China or of course Taiwan. It’s not really an immigrant culture, so it’s hard for people from Africa, Europe or elsewhere to fit in.

Accepting that as a basic guideline for who could claim membership in the group called “the Taiwanese”, the definition and elaboration of what Taiwanese ethnic indentity is is both subjective and objective. Objective, in terms of the normal way of judging an ethnic group, i.e. culture, appearance, history etc; and subjective in terms of who that people feel they are.

ThFor example, many people cannot really tell the difference between Scots and English, but they are ethnically distinct in some objective ways, plus in some subjective ways: Kilts and haggis and “Scotland forever!”. But if you don’t believe in “Scotland forever!”, you can argue all day about some English wearing kilts and having bagpipes and is haggis really Scottish and there was James the 1st of England and Scotland, etc. The point being, if you take away the subjective aspect, then the objective stuff is less powerful. And you can’t really take away people’s subjective reality, unless of course you’re a mind fucking CCP cadre, or a die-hard bluey hell bent on (re)unification.

The Japanese influence, aboriginal interblending and “island effect” uniqueness of the Taiwanese are objective factors. The sense of Taiwanese-ness is a subjective one. While people may legitimately debate the objective factors, the subjective factors are not legitimately subject to criticism. I mean, if some people feel ethnically Taiwanese, then who is anyone else to say, “Your feeling is wrong!” That’s the problem with Hisng Yun’s statement. He is denying a subjective Taiwanese identity because it is not his own. That’s what pisses me off, not that he wants (re)unification.

There is a third aspect to identity politics of course, which is about power. Most of the Taiwanese I know just want Taiwan to be left alone. They aren’t into TI or reunification. They just want China to fuck off and let them alone. For me, this is the real core of Taiwanese-ness. They don’t feel like they belong to the PRC. So, on that level, they are distinct. What bugs me about the CCP is the same thing that bugs me about their attitudes towards Xinjiang or Tibet: a complete lack of empathy for the subjective identity of the people. Pure bullying at almost a metaphysical level: “NO, we’ll define YOU!”

Yes the TI DPP side do like to be divisive. But no they did not invent Taiwanese identity for the sake of TI.

And AC, let me say this before you even get started!

Monkey gonna throw poo! Eeek Eeek!

Watch out for the monkey poo!

50 cents a turd!

52

mr_boogie,

If you feel all things “Chinese” are of lower value, that’s a racist value judgement on your part.

The Chinese society in Taiwan is not going to change because a political group decides to rename and redefine everything to fit their ill thought out paradigm. It is not some grand accident that the DPP are so low in the polls. People are rejecting them. One of the reasons being the Taiwanese identity platform and how it relates to TI.

BigJohn,

You really must be some lost white guy. Black people are offended by monkey referrence made by White people. Chinese people, occupying the highest rung in Taiwan society, feel it is our burden to educated those that want to assimilate in to Taiwan society.

But that is not how it is used by the Chinese in Taiwan. DPP doesn’t define it as such. Hoklos don’t define it as such. So once again you introduce confusion to the issue. Which is why it is plausible for the Chinese to just say, “Since you guys are so confused about Taiwanese, we can use the Chinese umbrella for now, till you guys figure it out.”

Scots also accept the fact they are politically within the State known as UK of Great Britian and Ireland.

Japanese influence is not really a factor. By my parents generation we all rejected Japanese teaching, and retained our Hoklo identity.

I think what pisses you off, is that you know he is more Taiwanese than you, and he has a credible platform to dismiss TI and their brand of Taiwanese Identity.

So what’s DPP chairperson Tsai Ying-Wen talking about with:
新本土論述 - New Nativism
包容的本土 - Tolerant Localization

53

[quote=“ac_dropout”]
But that is not how it is used by the Chinese in Taiwan. DPP doesn’t define it as such. Hoklos don’t define it as such. So once again you introduce confusion to the issue. Which is why it is plausible for the Chinese to just say, “Since you guys are so confused about Taiwanese, we can use the Chinese umbrella for now, till you guys figure it out.” [/quote]
Of course, the Chinese won’t use it in Taiwan. They’re Chinese. For the ones confused, a lot of them prefer neutralism. As for the rest, we know who we are. :smiley:

[quote=“ac_dropout”]
Scots also accept the fact they are politically within the State known as UK of Great Britian and Ireland. [/quote]
UK isn’t a country though. China is a country but not a State. (Hence, there should only be one China. Common sense.)

[quote=“ac_dropout”]
Japanese influence is not really a factor. By my parents generation we all rejected Japanese teaching, and retained our Hoklo identity. [/quote]
Uh-huh. Well, this makes more complete compleeete sense into seeing your mindset. Yep.

A lot of Taiwanese forgave the Japanese for their wrong-doings. Japan came and restructure everything that China didn’t do. China is the only one living in its past history without seeing eye to eye of others. It wants to be bigger in everything including territory wise.

I can’t wait to go back to Taipei and hug Takashimiya~!

Mmmm… He’s not. :eh:

54

[quote=“ac_dropout”]Using your example, most people agree, that the acculturation process that altered American culture from European culture, was more organic, and not dictated by a major political party. A case in point, most European languages of the original settlers are no longer spoken. Dutch and German are dead languages in the USA (unless you’re still driving a horse and buggy in the US). There is no push by descendents of these immigrants to make Dutch or German a language equal in status to English (not that it is neccessary, since diversity tolerance is a hallmark of American culture).[/quote] The process of “Taiwanization” ocurred over many centuries and was already in place long before the DPP ever existed. Rather, the DPP exists because of it. If you want to look at one political party that dictated policies of language and history you should be examining the KMT. How convenient to then paint the DPP as the ones who are trying to force their language on others - the victim suddenly becomes the perpetrator. At this point the DPP are certainly not trying to displace Mandarin with Taiwanese as the official language. It’s the Yellow Emperor mentality that holds that whatever the KMT surgically implanted on Taiwan should be accepted and any changes to that are treachery and must be undone. Yes, perhaps making certain changes at this point in time is not practical but the desire to do so need not be suppressed or demonized - it should still be addressed.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]In fact, the USA routinely goes through cycles where nativist promoting xenophobic policies are shouted down and pushed aside in politics.[/quote] Yes, because immigration may alter the complexion of the US but it won’t hijack the US politically and the majority of people know that. As you correctly mentioned the US sees diversity as strength and recognizes that it is best to use ideals to unite the diversity rather than religion or race.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]So with the lack of significant distinction, on top of the fact Chinese culture accept emmigrant identities; such as Singaporean Chinese, Malay Chinese, Oversea Chinese, the acculturation process the DPP promotes as “localization” that everyone in Taiwan should assimilate to, seem not to be very pragmatic nor realistic.[/quote] Another way to look at it is that other cultures accepted and absorbed Chinese immigration but the PRC merely sees this is a convenient and widely dispersed political base and potential source of leverage within the host cultures.

55

TaipeiDawg,

I don’t think you know anything about 臺灣本土化運動.
Seriously, you really think Taiwanization as promoted by the DPP, existed for hundreds of years in Taiwan…really? That’s what the DPP would want Chinese illiterate people to believe, wouldn’t they?

From an neutral stand point, aboriginal culture of Taiwan was dominated by Chinese culture during the Ming dynasty. It is from this Chinese culture in Taiwan, that Taiwanization occur in Taiwan agianst the Japanese imperialist, in order to try and establish more autonomy, with limited success. When the Japanese were replaced by the KMT, these same nativist Taiwanese, tried to do the same thing with the KMT, with limited success.

The dangwei movement revived 臺灣本土化運動, by recirculating old nativist liturature written during the Japanese occupation, to mobilize their base of “authentic” Taiwanese. Playing on the fact the “authentic” Taiwanese have throughout history (all 200 years of it) been victims and dominated by “outside” forces. The conclusion of the argument is that the “authentic” Taiwanese are destined to rule Taiwan.

So fast forward to today. You still have elements of victimization, some nonsense of using dialects or other dead languages not as versitle as Mandarin, but above all some weird sense of ethnic entitlement that make up the “localization” argument.

So given this short history lesson. I have no idea how some posters claim that Taiwanization is independent of TI political movement. It is a manifestation of the political movement, since there is no room for a unification supporting Taiwanese in Taiwanization.

Or even your claim that Taiwanization been going on in Taiwan for hundreds of year. The movement is about 70 years old, at most 100 years old if you count the Ming dynasty rebels first conflicts with Japan.

Even if the desire is deemed by some of the more thoughtful and intellectual Taiwanese to be self destructive.

Are TI supporters truly open to critism? Because looking at current events, TI supporters seems to enjoy censuring critics.

56

[quote=“ac_dropout”]TaipeiDawg,I don’t think you know anything about 臺灣本土化運動.
Seriously, you really think Taiwanization as promoted by the DPP, existed for hundreds of years in Taiwan…really? That’s what the DPP would want Chinese illiterate people to believe, wouldn’t they?
From an neutral stand point, aboriginal culture of Taiwan was dominated by Chinese culture during the Ming dynasty. It is from this Chinese culture in Taiwan, that Taiwanization occur in Taiwan agianst the Japanese imperialist, in order to try and establish more autonomy, with limited success. When the Japanese were replaced by the KMT, these same nativist Taiwanese, tried to do the same thing with the KMT, with limited success.
The dangwei movement revived 臺灣本土化運動, by recirclating old nativist liturature written during the Japanese occupation, to mobilize their base of “authentic” Taiwanese. Playing on the fact the “authentic” Taiwanese have throughout history (all 200 years of it) been victims and dominated by “outside” forces. The conclusion of the argument is that the “authentic” Taiwanese are destined to rule Taiwan.
So fast forward to today. You still have elements of victimization, some nonsense of using dialects or other dead languages not as versitle as Mandarin, but above all some weird sense of ethnic entitlement that make up the “localization” argument.
So given this short history lesson. I have no idea how some posters claim that Taiwanization is independent of TI political movement. It is a manifestation of the political movement, since there is no room for a unification supporting Taiwanese in Taiwanization.
Or even your claim that Taiwanization been going on in Taiwan for hundreds of year. The movement is about 70 years old, at most 100 years old if you count the Ming dynasty rebels first conflicts with Japan.[/quote]OK, so we’ve got different definitions of Taiwanization. You cling to the DPP political version of it whereas I’m referring to how cultures that came to Taiwan both affected Taiwan and vice verse in the same sense that Americanization ocurred. While you claim that “aboriginal culture of Taiwan was dominated by Chinese culture” you miss the point that at the same time “Chinese culture” was getting affected by local influences in Taiwan. I have numerous friends - including very pro-blue ones - who have gone to China and come back shaking their head saying, “Wow, their culture is definitely different than ours”. Yet instead of seeing this reality you wanna whine about how it’s all part of some kind of TI plot engineered by those devious locals. And by the way, your battle cry that it’s the DPP who have a sense of entitlement is just another indicator of your skewed view of Taiwan today. Must be a result of your Americanization or something…

57

= Eeek! Eeek!

Me: What the hell are you talking about? You on crack again?

= Eeek! Eeek!
Me: Not what I said. Read it again.

= Eeek! Eek!
Me: The scots could leave if they wanted to. And Japanese influence is still part of Taiwan. Your argument is bullshit.

= Eeek! Eeek!

Me: That’s not even up to your usual low standard.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]

So what’s DPP chairperson Tsai Ying-Wen talking about with:
新本土論述 - New Nativism
包容的本土 - Tolerant Localization[/quote]

= Eeek! Eeek!
Me: The DPP did not invent Taiwanese identity.

Your way of squirming away from every point is like a schoolboy making pathetic excuses for cheating on a quiz. Your viewpoints are basically without any coherence or substance. But don’t let that stop you. Keep throwing that poo!

58
59

I don’t deny that the local provincial culture in Taiwan was acculturated by various outside influences over time. Just like I don’t deny the distinction between the US lower 48 culture vs. US outer territory culture. Do those distinctions justify the US outer territorities to make political claims to de jure independence from the federation based on local identity?

It wasn’t that long ago in America, a political party lead by an individual from the ethnic majority, made arguments that it was un-American to not support their aggenda on war, undocument workers, science vs. religion, etc. Emotionally these arguments of identity and politics are compelling, but they are flawed if they are not grounded in reality.

So assuming one of the White majority states wanted to leave the US, because they saw America’s demographic changing to something not of their liking. Too many latinos, asians, blacks weakening the US and the culture. And Obama said “There are no White Americans, Black Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans; there are only Americans.” Would it be wise to support a comment like that? Or would it be wiser to support a postition that each ethnic group must have an absolute identity, and that we must above all we must respect the majority ethnic group no matter how extreme their politics?

My comments are solely about TI and Taiwanization; and how it relates to the perception of TI supporters being slighted by these comments. Notice how the rest of Taiwan, besides the TI supporters, don’t really care about the comments. Since they have no vested interest in ensuring that there has to be an absolute distinction between “Taiwanese” and “Chinese”. Which is why some Taiwanese scholars have referred to Taiwanization as a “fake” identity created solely for TI purposes.

Just like some in the US have argued that White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic identities in the US are artificial. A legacy of American culture when the racial identity of Blacks were created to promote slavery.

60

Maybe Tsai can say: “There are no Hoklo, Hakka, Aboriginals or Mainlanders - There are only Taiwanese”. Funny is, MYJ speaks about Taiwan, but mostly call it’s people Chinese… In his last statements, it is easy to start seing a pattern coming on. Yesterday he said “ethnic Chinese” (according to the etaiwannews, TT puts it as “Chinese community”)???