“The Taiwan You May Not Know” is an interesting article, first published in the Taiwanese press (UDN) last year. It accompanied the Lien/Soong visits to the mainland. The tone is on the pan-Blue side of the fence, and the author is WSR… but IMO, it presents a moderate position shared by most in Taiwan. But what I find really interesting (and did not realize initially) is that this article was also widely published in the mainland press, starting with the very influential China Youth Daily.
I’ll try to take time out to translate this in full over the upcoming days. (I’m also going to cross my fingers and hope that I stumble across a version in English.)
But I don’t agree with ESWN’s interpretation of some of the comments, nor do I agree with his choice to snip out the later paragraphs about Soong/Lien’s trip to mainland China. I’ll try to fill more in later, when the chance arises.
I don’t think it’s true at all that the highlighted blocks are the ‘crux’ of the matter at all. I think it’s unfortunate EWSN highlighted those two blocks, since its’ easier to focus on what was left out rather than what was kept in… but did you read the rest of the text?
The cut out sections were about the institution of a democratic vote. The sections that remained talked about a “democratic society” ruled by law, in which there is freedom of assembly and speech, in which government is transparent and services the people. The sections that remained also, more importantly, talked very fairly about the real motivations of many Taiwanese in either desiring independence or resisting reunification.
I think the sections that were left behind are very, very key.
Here’s the summary of the article, which EWSN “snipped” in his own translation:
Lien Chan chose to speak (in his speech at Beida) about freedom and democracy; Soong Chu-yu chose to speak (in his speech at Tsinghua) about “balanced” (shared) prosperity. These two things: a free democracy and shared prosperity happen to be the two core values that the Taiwanese care most about, find most important, find most necessary to protect, and absolutely can not be shaken or discarded.
[/quote]
I think that’s a very important and meaningful message.
I don’t think it’s true at all that the highlighted blocks are the ‘crux’ of the matter at all. I think it’s unfortunate EWSN highlighted those two blocks, since its’ easier to focus on what was left out rather than what was kept in… but did you read the rest of the text?
The cut out sections were about the institution of a democratic vote. The sections that remained talked about a “democratic society” ruled by law, in which there is freedom of assembly and speech, in which government is transparent and services the people. The sections that remained also, more importantly, talked very fairly about the real motivations of many Taiwanese in either desiring independence or resisting reunification.
I think the sections that were left behind are very, very key.
Here’s the summary of the article, which EWSN “snipped” in his own translation:
Lien Chan chose to speak (in his speech at Beida) about freedom and democracy; Soong Chu-yu chose to speak (in his speech at Tsinghua) about “balanced” (shared) prosperity. These two things: a free democracy and shared prosperity happen to be the two core values that the Taiwanese care most about, find most important, find most necessary to protect, and absolutely can not be shaken or discarded.
[/quote]
I think that’s a very important and meaningful message.[/quote]
No doubt, there are important parts left, but missing those pieces changes the tone & intent in a important way - the last section is most contentious and the part that China ‘gets’ the least about Taiwan. I don’t believe that Taiwan interested in any way about “Blood is thicker than water,” “The overriding principle of nationhood,” “The nation-building project” …etc… Where China doesn’t get it is that to suggest otherwise is often considered blasphamy by China and the host of ‘憤青’ that one seems to run into. Taiwanese often don’t talk about it because there is little to be achieved except an argument. Chinese often mistake this silence for agreement. Regardless, the above message does not resonate with most.
Maybe if one day China comes to represent what is portrayed in that article, there will be some kind of reconciliation. Until then, the status quo will be preferred.
I think you’re missing the point. You’re still operating in binary mode of if it’s not white then it must be black. It’s not that Taiwanese aren’t “interested about ‘Blood is thicker than water,’ ‘The overriding principle of nationhood,’ ‘The nation-building project’” – in fact, right in Long Yingtai’s article is a list of adherents of various experiences and opinions in Taiwan, and on the list are adherents of these very ideas. Her point was simply that the common denominator of what Taiwnese care about is not those things (neither is the rejection of those things, in fact most are apathetic); the common denominator is also not some specific means of voting or campaigning; instead the common denominator is an “end,” of having a free, fair, co-prosperous, and responsive society, and some means of achieving and securing it. This lives parallel to, but above the uneven bedrock of individual ideological concerns.
In fact, if you read Long Yingtai carefully, you are left with no choice but to conclude that the common denominator applies even to the opposite group (of people who reject Chinese identity and wish to de-Sinicize) and that if mainland China satisfied those common denominator concerns, the more pragmatic among them could accomodate themselves. I hope Elegua doesn’t then feel the need to proclaim, based on this observation, that all Taiwanese are not the least bit “interested about de-Sinicization and building a new Taiwanese identity.” Some are.
[quote=“michangel”]the descriptions are all good…but the fundamental point of the article i disagree with:
“As far as most of the people of Taiwan are concerned, this is really a lifestyle choice; it is very concrete and not abstract at all.”
i think there’s more to it than that. i think Taiwanese people do feel like they have a separate identity. so the separateness is both abstract and concrete.[/quote]
You also miss the point. She’s saying those things about lifestyle choices are concrete instead of abstract. She’s not saying there does not also exist other abstract differences. But the thing about abstract differences is, they change with the wind. They get created and annihilated. They can even coexist. They are just not critical in the grand scheme of things. It’s the concrete things that matter and that should get people to sit up; that’s exactly what the author advises Chinese mainlanders: to take note of the concrete differences.
I think you nailed that response to Elegua’s point, zeugmite. I agree with you 100%.
The anecdotal tale of the three visitors to the mainland Chinese opera performance reads a little like a Buddhist/Taoist tale. And all of the characters are important representations of the truth.
No. I’m not missing the point. The Taiwanese are pragmantic, which is why the ‘Blood is thicker than water,’ ‘The overriding principle of nationhood,’ ‘The nation-building project’ does not resonate, just as independence now does not resonate. IMHO most Taiwanese fear the loss of, as CCTang put it so well:
[quote] a “democratic society” ruled by law, in which there is freedom of assembly and speech, in which government is transparent and services the people…talked very fairly about the real motivations of many Taiwanese in either desiring independence or resisting reunification.
[/quote]
even if what exists now is at times only a ragged semblance of the above.
No. But you may be missing the point that these people should be allowed to exist, even if the majority don’t agree, to have a democratic society.
Whatever solution to the current situation must be able to incorporate the very things that Taiwanese value as raised in the article to be the slightest bit interesting. To some, that is intolerable.
I’m currently reading a collection of Long Yingtai’s essays in Chinese, which includes 請用文明來說服我 and 你不能不知道的台灣. It’s interesting reading. She writes in a very clear manner and uses a lot of Western style rhetorical devices (repetition, etc.) It’s so much more refreshing to read than most other newspaper op-eds out there.
I think you should re-read your earlier post, Elegua. You said:
I’m sure zeugmite, as well as myself, read that as a one-sided rejection of the “reunification” nationalist point of view without any mention of the “independence” nationalist point of view. Leaving out one side of the equation totally changes the message.
I for one don’t hold any illusions about the “resonance” of the Chinese nationalist message in Taiwan. But I happen to think that the Chinese nationalist message is not mutually exclusive with the democratic society that represents the Taiwanese “common denominator” (as zeugmite described it). Beijing rarely plays up the Chinese nationalism angle when it speaks to Taiwan these days: it instead emphasizes the need for mutually beneficial policies that serves the interests of both sides. In other words, a very pragmatic position.
[quote=“cctang”]I think you should re-read your earlier post, Elegua. You said:
I’m sure zeugmite, as well as myself, read that as a one-sided rejection of the “reunification” nationalist point of view without any mention of the “independence” nationalist point of view. Leaving out one side of the equation totally changes the message.
I for one don’t hold any illusions about the “resonance” of the Chinese nationalist message in Taiwan. But I happen to think that the Chinese nationalist message is not mutually exclusive with the democratic society that represents the Taiwanese “common denominator” (as zeugmite described it). Beijing rarely plays up the Chinese nationalism angle when it speaks to Taiwan these days: it instead emphasizes the need for mutually beneficial policies that serves the interests of both sides. In other words, a very pragmatic position.[/quote]
No…its a one-sided rejection of those as reasons for Taiwan wanting to re-unify, as hard as that may be to hear. And no, Nationalism and Deomocracy are not mutually exclusive, but there is a large gap between the “common denominator” and Chinese nationalism a la PRC (maybe racially or culturally) as it exists today. If it is not a “nation building project” and if it is a case of “blood thicker than water”, then why is a Commonwealth unacceptable?
I don’t exclude the possibility that the China Taiwan faces accross the straights might be much different than the one it is today…but until then, I believe that the “common denominator” is all about the status quo. Got to run to a meeting…will add
You are interpreting something that is not there. She never writes that the abstract are “not that important to Taiwanese people.” She isn’t trying to weigh “the concrete” against “the abstract” on a scale. She is peeling away the abstract to reveal the concrete “critical core” that is inside, which embodies all the details of daily life that any and all Taiwanese value, regardless of his/her color or whether s/he even cares. Here is the common denominator theme again in a different guise. The abstract is multitude, the core is one.
Well, what I mean is, insofaras you can isolate a strain of Taiwanese identity that is purely intangible (then we’re talking about something akin to religious faith), as much as it may be important to some individuals, if it isn’t backed by something concrete, nothing will come of it. And if it is backed by something concrete, then as soon as the concrete changes, the identity can easily change with it. As cctang pointed out elsewhere, we’ve witnessed the flip of almost everybody in Taiwan proclaiming a primarily Chinese identity to almost everybody in Taiwan proclaiming a primarily Taiwanese identity in a matter of years. At the same time, the “opposite,” if you will, has been taking place in Hong Kong. Identity is a fickle thing. Why do TI/ers rant daily about the dearth of “Taiwan consciousness” in Taiwan? Why are TI/ers so opposed to opening up? Because they know identity is a fickle thing.
[quote=“michangel”]“Thus, the lifestyle choice is the critical core question for the problem. If you talk to him about “Blood is thicker than water, The overriding principle of nationhood,” “The nation-building project” and other grand narratives, aren’t you straying away off” topic? "
when you say something is critical core problem to someone - and then go on to discount particular examples of “intangibles”/“abstracts” (blood/identity/ethnicity, nationhood, nation-building) and their immediate importance to that someone/a people - you are by implication AND DIRECTLY affirming your (the author’s) opinion that the abstract matter less. it’s just a matter of very basic comprehension. i think you’re quite lost in your own semantics.[/quote]
Now you are just MISinterpreting the article.
In your first sentence, there is a semantic glitch with the “to someone” underlined. When she writes the “critical core … for the problem,” the “problem” she refers to is the cross-strait problem, and the “critical core” refers to core to that problem, not core to somebody’s belief, as you have it. In your second sentence, there is a fundamental misfire of logic on your part. When she says “talking about all this abstract stuff is going off topic,” she isn’t discounting the importance of abstract concepts to anybody’s belief – hell, we know they ARE important to Chinese nationalists and Taiwanese nationalists alike. She means just what she writes. Here’s a simple analogy: whenever in this discussion forum somebody says “hey, you’re off topic,” it doesn’t imply the other topic is not important in its own right, nor does it imply it isn’t important to the person bringing it up, it’s just a call to stick to the focus. Long Yingtai’s rhetorical device here is the same – a way of guiding the discussion taking place inside her article to a particular focus that she spent several sections setting up.
Taken in the context of the rest of the article, what does she actually say here? (Not what you put in her mouth.) She says, understanding the cross-strait issue using concepts such as unification vs. independence, socialism vs. capitalism, nationalism vs. separatism is abstract. She says, look, here is something that I can say about most Taiwanese regardless of ideology, that merely by going about their daily lives as they are accustomed to, they are choosing a set of concrete things to value, automatically. She says, therefore, let’s peel away the abstract and focus on this common denominator of concrete life experiences when talking about the cross-strait issue, because those matter to somebody who supports the “grand narrative” of “overriding principle of nationhood”, “the grand national task”, “blood thicker than water”, those matter to somebody who opposes it, those matter even to somebody who doesn’t care.
I think hers is a sharp observation, because even if you manage to convert everybody to your narrative or dismiss everybody who doesn’t share it, very little is actually done because the concrete concerns are still there, so they truly are the critical core of the problem. East and West Germans know this years after unification.
She is saying you will have to first and at least satisfy those concrete concerns. The reader can also conclude that pragmatic people will care mostly about concrete concerns – this is my conclusion as addressed in my first reply to Elegua – but that is almost by the definition of pragmatism and obvious, requiring no sinister “hints” from Long Yingtai’s article, as you seem to think. The one thing Long Yingtai’s article adds to that is that she says Taiwan is pluralistic and many “little narratives” (read, ideologies) can co-exist, meaning, Taiwanese people are fairly pragmatic on the whole. I agree with that. I add that the middle-of-the-roaders that make up the majority bloc in Taiwan is characterized perhaps not so much by the unity of opinion but primarily by such pragmatism. The likes of you ideologues on the fringe have had and will continue to have a tough time fighting against such a majority.
I personally think that’s BS. Lipstick on a pig. Would you, and the deep green community at large, support the right for WSR dominated areas of Taiwan to self-determine as Chinese? I’ve posed this question before. Would you, would the true “deep green community”, give support to a proposal to divide Taiwan into north/south halves, with the northern half becoming part of a reunified China?
I don’t pretend any moral superiority over the deep green nationalist, but I sure as heck refuse to accept their moral superiority on this issue either. They have their own grand narrative about the “Taiwanese nation” and its struggle to stand on its own two feet, after centuries of “foreign” domination. You can see this even in the way they condescendingly view ROC citizens who view themselves as Chinese; they have no intention of letting these “Chinese” determine the future of any part of Taiwan, and instead demand that they 滚回中国.
elegua, this author specifically referred to the “grand narrative” that the Chinese nationalists use because that’s who this article was intended to speak to. This article accompanied Soong/Ma’s visit, and was intended to explain Taiwan to the mainlanders out there who understand our Chinese nationalism… not Taiwan. But if you are going to be fair and honest, you have to absolutely recognize the truth of what she’s saying: that there are Taiwan-born Taiwanese who share this grand narrative of the Chinese nation, just as there are mainland-born WSR within the deep green community; that both of these communities lie in the distant minority;
… and that in fact, the great majority of Taiwanese desire the preservation of the factors already listed above.
The intention of this article was to point out what the mainlanders may not know. But certainly, a lack of candidness on this issue isn’t restricted to those on the mainland. If you don’t agree with the above, go take a look at polls. Get away from your immediate circle of friends. She’s right on in terms of understanding the moderate position.
“Deep Green” are those who resolutely support the abstracts of Taiwanese independence; “Deep Blue” are those who embrace the abstract theory of a reunified China. In today’s Taiwan, both these are in the minority. The great majority are those moderates that can not be described via color; people who do not hold an “absolute” value judgment on these issues.
These moderate Taiwanese, like others around the world, crave social harmony, economic stability, family happiness, and individual protection under the law. But because they’ve experienced colonialism and dictatorship, they feel a great deal of cynicism and doubt for abstract theories about “nationhood” and “race”. Instead, they care most about freedom of speech and thought; they care about social equality and care for the weak; they care that the government machinery do not violate their privacy and human rights.[/quote]
This person in Taiwan posted Long Yingtai’s article but somehow thinks Chinese officials censored the article and banned the paper that carried it. He also thinks that China is about to have a “big chaos” (collapse?). Note the date of this guy’s post: (Posted: 2005-06-19 12:52). This, a month after the publication of Long’s article in Xinhua News (in cctang’s original link). It can hardly be more ironic.