What Does It Mean to Be Taiwanese?

One important factor in the willingness to unite is relative levels of economic development and the perception that the poorer country could catch up. In the case of Germany and Korea, the wealthier partner believed or believes that because it is bigger and wealthir than the poorer half, the poorer half can catch up. In the case of Vietnam and Korea, moreover, the fact that both halves of the country were ruled by the same colonial power probably also has a lot to do with their identity.

In the case of Taiwan, the single greatest contributing factor to a separate political identity is probably the Japanese occupation followed secondly by the KMT regime. It has taken me many years to understand just how profound Japan’s influence was on Taiwan–and I’m not sure that many people in Taiwan consciously understand it either.

Take two examples–democracy and rule of law. When Taiwan was a colony, it was a colony the way French Algeria was a colony. In other words, Taiwan was a part of Japan and hundreds of thousands of Japanese lived here permanently. They were school teachers, postmen, police officers etc, Many of them were from the Japanese left, which has always been very strong. Taiwanese intellectuals and professionals absorbed the Japanese left’s commitment to democracy and spread it throughout Taiwanese society. Now of course Taiwan under Japanese was not a democracy, but the idea of democracy took root then in a way that I believe it never has in China.

The Japanese also left Taiwan with a strong legacy of rule of law-again something that is still pretty alien in China. Then under the KMT, Taiwan was spared the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Taiwan also has had several identity-defining events–the most prominent of which is the 2-28 incident and the struggle for democracy and human rights in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Add on top of all that China’s unrelenting and petty hostility, it’s not hard to see why Taiwanese are likely to choose to go their own way for the forseeable future.

Finally and most fundamentally is the fact that China has very little to offer Taiwan. What China fails to understand is that it has to make Taiwan an offer that Taiwan is willing to accept. So far it has shown no signs of doing so and, fortunately, it’s probably too late already.

YC:

I believe your figures on support for TI are off. Recent polls show that about 15 percent of the population wants to declare independence now. This is the ‘hard’ TI position. I’ll just add that like me, most of these people don’t want war either. They believe that the dithering, risk-averse Chinese government would never dare to attack.

A much larger percentage of people would choose independence if they could do so without the threat of war. This we might call the soft position. This figure may now be well over 50 percent. Less than 10 percent of the population want to reunify and their numbers are declining fast.

I also strongly disagree with your notion that Asian people are somehow more predisposed to choosing peace. During the 20th century far more Asian killed other Asians that did non-asians. This was especially true in China up until 1949.

The 2004 LY elections were about local politics. On issues of identity and the future of Taiwan, you need to look at what happened during the last two presidential elections.

If you look at the 2000 election, far more people voted against Chen than for him. 2004 was quite different, though many people have different views of just what happened and why. I think the personalities of the candidates had a lot to do with the presidential elections. Chen is much more personable and approachable than Lien, who is, to be honest, rather slimy. People feel better about Chen, and his moderation/wishiwashiness (depending on how you see it) over the first four years was reassuring to some people.

The LY elections, taken individually, of course concerned local politics, but taken as a whole I think you can also look at nationwide political trends.

Voter turnout was also much lower in the LY elections.

[quote=“Yellow Cartman”]
I agree LittleBuddhaTW. When you boil down the issue to its heart, it’s solely a political issue and I think Feiren and other similarly minded folks wouldn’t disagree. [/quote]
I would disagree. It seems pretty clear to me that “What it means to be XYZ” is a cultural/historical issue which is then used and manipulated for political reasons. If you want to discuss how a growing Taiwanese conciousness affects independence talk, then that’s a political topic - but if you want to discuss what that Taiwanese conciousness is (which this thread does) then you’re looking at Culture & History.

So? I would expect that a forum in Beijing talking about “what it means to be a Beijinger” would put that discussion in Culture/History too. (Hell, a discussion about “what it means to be Tibetan” is cultural not political too, despite the political overtones there.)

Whether Taiwan is part of China, an independent country, an American protectorate, or just an island where 23 million people live, it has its own unique history, customs and traditions - and how those differ with other places in the world is an interesting question. Of course, if you really want the discussion to drift into an analysis of how turnout in recent elections reflects support for independence, then Taiwan Politics is where it should go (oops, too late :unamused: )

Apologies for drifting.

I think there is a real question though as to whether there is really such a thing as ‘identity’ out there or whether it is a kind of political effect. I really do think there are some social, cultural, and historical factors out there that make Taiwan different from China, but it seems to me that some kind of political will has to be exercised to bind these factors into an experienced identity.

I would argue that while they have good material to work from, people like LTH and CSB are creating a Taiwanese identity rather than simply reflecting it. In much the same way, the KMT created a sense of Chinese identity before. This is why the struggle over control of the educational system and testing is so bitter–these are the institutions that can help identities ‘stick’ as it were.

While I’m at it, people often say that Taiwanese identity is a kind of mirror image of Chinese identity–at least the Chinese identity created by the KMT. I’m undecided. What do you people think?

If you look at any area where there are a decent number of expats/immigrants from Taiwan (say San Francisco) then they’ll have grouped together into some sort of Taiwanese community - that implies a sense of ‘identity’ doesn’t it? It may be the result of the political situation over the last 50 years, but it isn’t due to any overt political manipulation.

I’d say they’re trying to articulate that identity (in other words, it’s already there, but noone has really tried to define it yet) - and of course emphasise the differences with mainstream Chinese culture along the way.

Ah. Now this is one of the reasons I’m keen to try to (as far as possible) separate the political from the cultural. If you listen to LTH, then the ‘mirror image’ argument is probably fair: “We are Chinese, plain and simple” gets translated into “We are not Chinese, plain and simple”. However, talk to a normal person and you’ll get a mish mash of loads of Chinese customs and traditions, pride in Taiwan’s recent acheivements, the odd Japanese influence thrown in - a mixture which is nowhere near the absolute positions of the KMT or TSU-sponsored positions.

[quote=“david”][quote=“Yellow Cartman”]
I agree LittleBuddhaTW. When you boil down the issue to its heart, it’s solely a political issue and I think Feiren and other similarly minded folks wouldn’t disagree. [/quote]
I would disagree. It seems pretty clear to me that “What it means to be XYZ” is a cultural/historical issue which is then used and manipulated for political reasons. [/quote]

Yeah, you could say that. It’s splitting hairs. Which one is wagging the other?

To me, they are part and parcel. Taiwanese consciousness is tied to the political (TI) question. Without TI, there would not have been a Taiwanese consciousness as it has developed today. Hence, the characterization as a mostly political question, not a cultural and historical one.

[quote=“Feiren”]Apologies for drifting.

I think there is a real question though as to whether there is really such a thing as ‘identity’ out there or whether it is a kind of political effect. [/quote]

I believe so which is why at the outset I pointed xp+10 to the the Stanford and Wikipedia site on “identity politics”. So my biases are clear, it’s also not saying that I don’t recognize cultural (i.e. ethnic) and historical aspects of the question.

In case other people think I’m off the wall on this one, I point out this recent panel discussion at University of California, Berkeley - Institute of East Asian Studies.

Take a look at this paper: Accounting for Ethnic Consciousness in Taiwan: An Endogenous Perspective

Another article from the Christian Science Monitor

Here’s one from CEFC (French Centre for Research on Contemporary China) which I haven’t read completely by Gunter Schubert

Yes, they are, political necessity requires that it be done. Otherwise, what does TI have to stand on?

[quote=“Yellow Cartman”]
To me, they are part and parcel. Taiwanese consciousness is tied to the political (TI) question. Without TI, there would not have been a Taiwanese consciousness as it has developed today.[/quote]I think you’re putting the cart before the horse. Without a Taiwanese consciousness, where would the yearning for independance have come from?

[quote=“hsiadogah”][quote=“Yellow Cartman”]
To me, they are part and parcel. Taiwanese consciousness is tied to the political (TI) question. Without TI, there would not have been a Taiwanese consciousness as it has developed today.[/quote]I think you’re putting the cart before the horse. Without a Taiwanese consciousness, where would the yearning for independance have come from?[/quote]

Yep, I see your point. I think the differences in opinion stems from the definition of Taiwanese consciousness. I define Taiwanese consciousness as the will for self-determination, a political force.

Yeah - but that’s a very narrow political definition. Surely you don’t think that anyone who considers themselves ‘Taiwanese’ is a supporter of independence? (Or conversely no supporters of the status quo, or eventual reunification, think they are Taiwanese).

Personally, I think the concept of being Taiwanese has much more to do with the cartoons that everyone watched as kids 20 years ago than the politicians people voted for last year.

Yeah - but that’s a very narrow political definition. [/quote]

:smiley: Heh, yes maybe one could argue that my position is a bit circular :wink:

With identity, you can pretty much call yourself what you want and hold many nuanced views of independence, status quo, reunification whatever. It’s not monolithic.

My sense is that a person who considers him/herself Taiwanese is at the very minimum a person who does not (wish to) connect with China, whether, politically, culturally, ethnically and makes pains to remove traces of any linkage. As that’s a personal decision it doesn’t always have to do with politics, culture, ethnicity, history etc.

I believe you are only half correct here. You are correct in that the Japanese colonial period has been instrumental in shaping Taiwanese identity, more than most would aknowledge. Yet your stated reasons for them are patently wrong. On the first issue of democracy, you postulate that Taiwan was somehow the recepticle of democratic values vis-a-vis Japan. However this is neither qualifiable nor even very accurate. Whatever liberties that existed within the quasi-democratic Taisho era, Taiwan was first and foremost a colonial possession and was neither governed under a democratic system nor subject to the same law as the “home islands”. How you can logically conclude that the near total absence of democractic trappings somehow allowed democracy to take root is beyond me. The issue of Japanese settlers on Taiwan and the influence of the Japanese political left is simply a canard. This statement is neither relevant nor substantiable. Considering the times and circumstances, it could be more forcefully argued that many of the settlers on Taiwan were rightists and that the Japanese right has always been overwhelmingly dominant over the left (a trend that continues to this day). It would seem a somewhat strange statement if I stated that the Taiwanese absorbed Japan’s commitment towards fascism, racialism, and militarism, yet it would be more accurate than your belief. What the Taiwanese elite did absorb (those who attended higher education within Japan) were possible strains of political radicalism as well as the underlying power dynamic between colonizer and colonized.

Your second notion that Japan left behind on Taiwan a tradition of rule of law would seem slightly more plausible than the influence of democracy, yet even this theory is fundamentally flawed. Chiefly being that when the Japanese left, they were immediately replaced by a fully functioning government and its accompanying political institutions. This government and the sole political party would continue to rule Taiwan for the next 40 years and its legacy has a far more important political impact on contemporary politics on Taiwan than Japanese colonial institutions 40 years gone. Also I believe most people here would agree that the KMT was far from bound by the rule of law. Another qualifier needs to be raised as to what exactly qualifies as “rule of law”. For me, this term consists of trinity of supporting ideas. One, that the governmental institutions are regulated and bound by legislation and there are no blatant exceptions where power overrides the law. Two, that politicians and bureaucrats can properly distinguish between the private and public spheres and will seek to keep them separate. Three, that private individuals will recognize the legitimacy of law and accept these regulations. Now it is a given that in these categories, Taiwan is lightyears ahead of mainland China, yet even then these three principals are incomplete on Taiwan. Is Taiwan governed by the rule of law? My best answer would be a tenuous, “kinda, sorta, maybe”.

Now that I have addressed the issues which I feel are not the cause of Taiwanese identity, I will simply state what I believe are. The Japanese colonial period and the accompanying separation from the political turmoil on mainland China has not created so much as an identity, but more accurately a lack of one. Japan’s efforts to assimilate Taiwan and make it Japanese were incomplete, having afterall been interrupted by world war 2 and the resulting KMT occupation. This left Taiwan in a state of social flux, which would be compounded by the next several decades of KMT rule where the Japanese colonial education was replaced by an RoC nationalist one. Unfortunately for Taiwan, the KMT efforts were likewise incomplete since the foundations of Chinese nationalism were shaped by the events of the early 20th century, events that spared Taiwan.

In brief, it is not praiseworthy political principles that distinguishes Taiwanese identity from Chinese identity. But rather wholesale confusion that stemmed from the integration of a foreign culture(Japan’s) followed by alien politics(China’s) into Taiwanese society that has created a situation of insecure loyalties.

Interesting discussion. I’m glad it hasn’t been dragged into the gutter yet by certain posters who frequent the TP thread.

[quote=“Feiren”]Take two examples–democracy and rule of law. When Taiwan was a colony, it was a colony the way French Algeria was a colony. In other words, Taiwan was a part of Japan and hundreds of thousands of Japanese lived here permanently. They were school teachers, postmen, police officers etc, Many of them were from the Japanese left, which has always been very strong. Taiwanese intellectuals and professionals absorbed the Japanese left’s commitment to democracy and spread it throughout Taiwanese society. Now of course Taiwan under Japanese was not a democracy, but the idea of democracy took root then in a way that I believe it never has in China.

The Japanese also left Taiwan with a strong legacy of rule of law-again something that is still pretty alien in China. [/quote]

I’ll play devil’s advocate and pose a few questions in response to these statements. Putting on my mainlander cap, I would argue that Hong Kong clearly enjoys a stronger system of the rule of law than Taiwan. Some mainlanders would argue, with some validity, that a few cities on the mainland can already compare with Taiwanese cities on issues of law enforcement and general consciousness of the rule of law. The British held Hong Kong for over 150 years and left a much greater imprint on the legal and political system than the Japanese left after their 50 years in Taiwan. While I wouldn’t completely ignore the influence the Japanese left may have had on Taiwanese society, I have doubts about how strong or durable it could have been. Just how strongly could they have influenced Taiwan in 50 years? My guess is that as far as the rule of law and democracy are concerned, any long term influence that the Japanese left had was limited to a small number of Taiwanese intellectuals. I don’t see these influences as anywhere near as strong as what the Brits left in Hong Kong. I imagine that any consciousness of democracy and the rule of law that the Japanese did instill was damn near wiped away by WWII and then the KMT coming over.

To your statements about the Japanese legacy of the rule of law and democracy, the educated mainlander or pro-Beijing Hong Konger would tell you that any such legacy was piss weak to begin with and irrelevant as far as an idependent identity is concerned. Hong Kong still enjoys the same rule of law that it enjoyed in 1997 and it is now a part of the PRC. Having the rule of law and a bit of democracy has not led to the development of a Hong Kong identity that is strong enough for Hong Kong people to fight for independence. Considering that the rule of law in Taiwan still can’t even compare with that of Hong Kong, why would Taiwanese be any more willing to fight for any sort of Taiwanese identity that is defined by the rule of law? In the pro-unificationist’s mind, varying degrees of acceptance of the rule of law and democracy in different areas of what they consider China are still just small variations within the overall Chinese identity. They see Hong Kong’s return as proof of that. While you and I may think otherwise, their views on this are damn near unshakeable. To the liberal mainlander who has seen Hong Kong unified with the PRC, any Taiwanese identity that has roots in consciousness of the rule of law or democracy is no identity at all. Sadly, at least a few ROC citizens seem to see it the same way.

I’m amazed that you think Chen Shui Bian doesn’t come close to your minimum requirements for being Taiwanese :laughing:

I remember there was a survey a few years ago where about 40% of people in Taiwan said they considered themselves Taiwanese, 40% considered themselves Taiwanese/Chinese and 15% considered themselves Chinese. Those figures clearly don’t map onto your definition (not least because calling yourself Taiwanese and Chinese doesn’t seem to be possible with that definition).

The “but there are bigger differences within the PRC” argument is a complete red herring. For example: take Beijing, Shanghai, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Tibet and Xinjiang and consider the similarities/differences. Clearly the first five have much more in common with each other than with the last two - but each has it’s own unique identity. Now try comparing New York, New Orleans, Quebec, Toronto, LA, Alaska, and Hawaii, and you’ll get similar results. All this tells us is that a single country can have many different cultures, and that cultures in different countries (or ‘disputed territories’ :stuck_out_tongue: ) can be similar. For 13 of the 14 places I’ve mentioned above, you could have a sensible discussion about their identity without getting too bogged down in the political situation. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, a Taiwanese identity is not the same as an independent Taiwan.

I’m amazed that you think Chen Shuibian doesn’t come close to your minimum requirements for being Taiwanese :laughing:

I remember there was a survey a few years ago where about 40% of people in Taiwan said they considered themselves Taiwanese, 40% considered themselves Taiwanese/Chinese and 15% considered themselves Chinese. Those figures clearly don’t map onto your definition (not least because calling yourself Taiwanese and Chinese doesn’t seem to be possible with that definition).[/quote]

If you think about what identity politics is about, it doesn’t matter what I think and it doesn’t have to map to anything. Identity is a personal issue and not one person will consider it the same way. Years ago, people didn’t think I was an American but Chinese and told to “go back where I came from” more often than I care to remember.

So based on those numbers then, it gives support to my position that this is a political issue, not a cultural/historical one. One could call themselves Taiwanese, but still be Chinese. Just as someone could say that they’re Californian but still be an American and is an American. Being Taiwanese does not mean that you’re not also Chinese. You could be both, but wear different labels.

Yes but not in this case :p.

[quote=“Jive Turkey”]My guess is that as far as the rule of law and democracy are concerned, any long term influence that the Japanese left had was limited to a small number of Taiwanese intellectuals. I don’t see these influences as anywhere near as strong as what the Brits left in Hong Kong. I imagine that any consciousness of democracy and the rule of law that the Japanese did instill was damn near wiped away by WWII and then the KMT coming over.[/quote]Remember that you basically had the KMT pulling the roots out and replacing rule by law with rule by man. I think the Japanese had done a better job than you’re giving them credit for, though this progress was very rapidly rolled back by the arriving KMT forces. They had all the guns after all, and as we know were not shy to use them. Hong Kong’s legal and democratic institutions are under threat, but in a far more subtle way.

Yes, I already covered that in my post.

But any success they had in leaving an influence in Taiwan is more or less irrelevant to Taiwan’s current identity as whatever Japanese legacy that was left in 1945 was demolished by the KMT in short order. Sure, some people will try to recreate an identity based on aspects of Taiwan’s experience under Japanese rule, but that is not the same as the Japanese leaving their imprint in 1945 and that imprint being allowed to remain a part of local institutions and education, without being intentionally and actively wiped away. Compare that to HK, in which Beijing saw a system that was already working and decided to stick with it. Sure, they don’t always seem to understand the beauty of the system, but they have not demolished the system as the KMT did in Taiwan, nor have they rolled back freedoms in HK.

What “progress” are you talking about? I wouldn’t go so far as to say that ideas about democracy and the rule of law didn’t find their way into Taiwan during the Japanese occupation, but as far as I know, there was never any process for implementing democracy or true rule of law.

I don’t understand why you or anyone else would say this. Although I believe there are many problems in the way the Hong Kong government is chosen and there are many ways that the rule of law in HK could be improved, I challenge you to explain just how things in HK are now worse than they were under colonial rule and then show how unification has been the cause. You make out as though the institutions the British left were much better than they actually were. The problem in HK is not that Beijing is rolling back the progress that the British and local Chinese made in setting up the legal and administrative systems. HK enjoys no less democracy at present than it did at the handover. Aside from two reinterpretations of the Basic law which were legal (although wrong, in my opinion) by the NPC, the indepence of the HK judiciary is still quite secure-definitely no less secure than when HK was ruled by the British. In my opinion, the problem in HK is that Beijing now seems to want to freeze the system and not allow it to evolve. In essence, they seem to want to run it as their own sort of colony. That is surely a big problem, but it is not the same as intentional, systematic rollback. Although many mainlanders are loath to openly admit it, they recognize quite a lot of the strengths in HK’s system and don’t want to do away with them. Whether or not they fully understand those strengths and how to build upon them is another thing.

I firmly believe that HK would benefit from the abolition of functional constituencies. I believe that all of the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive should be chosen through competitive elections that all adult citizens can participate in. Many people in HK feel the same way. A fair number of these people also believe that Taiwan is part of China and that Taiwanese identity is just something manufactured by a handful of Taiwanese who don’t see unification as being in their interests (as if having “interests” is somehow a corrupt thing :loco: ). In their minds, even though they see themselves as having a different identity from that of mainlanders, they are still Chinese. Some of them figure that if any Chinese had ever had a legitimate case for claiming a seperate identity and then going for independence, it would have been them, not the Taiwanese. To nearly every mainlander, quite a lot of HKers and a good number of Taiwanese, claims of an identity distinct from “Chinese identity” that are based on foreign influence are worthless. In their eyes, since the place that received the biggest and longest lasting foreign influence has already been reintegrated, any identity based on foreign influence or the experience of rule by foreigners is not a strong enough identity to justify independence.

In my opinion, when Taiwanese emphasize different historical experiences in order to describe Taiwanese identity, they are actually just showing how Chinese they are. Mainlanders will ramble on and on about their historical claims to Taiwan. Many of these historical claims, just like many of the claims about Taiwanese identity that emphasize Japanese or aboriginal influence, amount to a thimblefull of bullshit. I’m not saying that aboriginal or Japanese influence doesn’t matter at all, but I believe that it is blown out of proportion just so that Taiwanese can feel that they have a historical basis for their identity. That seems to be a very Chinese habit to me. In my opinion, many of the differences that pro-independence folks emphasize are just as shallow as the identity they are trying to reject.

As has been stated by others earlier in this thread, I believe that the only way a Taiwanese identity can truly prove itself as distinct is for it to be based on political ideals and the rule of law. At the end of the day, those are the only things that Taiwanese will fight and die to retain. Similiarities to all the other little cultural and historical differences can be found in spades on the mainland. The reason that so many seem to care so little about serving and being ready to fight the mainlanders is because even though they do have a Taiwanese identity, that identity still doesn’t fully embrace the distinct values that are most worth fighting and dying for: the rule of law, clean and transparent government and a political system with a high degree of accountability. Significant numbers of Taiwanese men are not going to pick up a weapon and fight for aboriginal costumes, Taiyu or vestiges of Japanese influence.

Perhaps my post was too succinct, so I’ll add a few points.

The situation is postwar Taiwan and 1997 HK was quite different wrt to the attention it was getting in international media. There were some defeated Japanese troops and some low-ranking US officers to witness what the arriving KMT did. I don’t think anyone cared about Taiwan very much and it probably didn’t occur to anyone that the arriving KMT might have actually been worse administrators than the defeated Japanese. There wasn’t a modern communication infrastructure in place to get the word out to the outside world, which was too busy to have been listening anyway. OTOH, HK’s handover was done under the microscope of international scrutiny. Beijing doesn’t have much choice but to leave HK’s mini-constitution in place, but it is attempting to chip away at it little by little when it thinks noone is watching. It’s quite clear I think that Beijing would like to return HK to some pre-Patten model, and certainly does not wish it to progress along to anything approach full democracy with full and direct elections. One of the ways in which it applies pressure is the carrot of economic opportunity in China which is most certainly not held out to those who are seen as pro-democracy. There’s no need for full-scale censorship when you can get the population to censor itself for the sake of economic benefit. China simply moved much of HK’s economy to Shanghai and let them fall over themselves to toe the party line in hope of getting it back again. No need for tanks.

I forgot to mention Taiwan’s home rule movement and it’s success during the last years of the Japanese administration of gaining some involvement in a democratic process at the grassroots level. No, it wasn’t full-fledged democracy, but it was an important step in the right direction. Obviously the Japanese colonial administration came to believe the majority of citizens had come to see themselves as Japanese and thus trustworthy enough to take part in the colony’s governance. Who’s to say that in another 50 years Taiwan’s government would not have resembled that of HK’s, with a great number of Taiwanese serving as legislators, judges… ?

If HK’s judiciary is impartial and independant, why is it that Beijing gets to pick and choose which defendants will be tried there or in China? A systemic rollback? Well maybe not, but that’s not necessary. Beijing already has what it wants, which is a system that’s fair at the lower levels, with petty bribery being almost impossible, but access at the top levels to make changes or adjustments at will. All that has to be done is to remove the public’s belief in the system being fair and impartial and the FUD effect has already been achieved.

I agree that clean and transparent legal institutions are a key factor in the Taiwanese patriotism, since people don’t even want to pay tax to administration that’s corrupt and self-serving, let alone fight and die for it. Why do you think Beijing does everything it can to see that pan-blue stays in power?