Your deliberate mixing usage of Taiwanese as a ethnicity and Taiwanese as a nationality is pretty pointless. I thought we would have a more civil debate on the subject.
You have it wrong again. There is no conflict between Taiwan proper and Mainland China. There was a conflict between the KMT and CCP, which unfortunately both Taiwan and Kinmen got caught in between. I’m not sure why Taiwan and Kinmen should suffer such fate, but that is in the past.
As for the future, the conflict seems to be a global one, and Taiwan needs to stand on its own before choosing sides if the people of Taiwan do not wish to be senselessly caught in between others conflicts again.
The DPP are foreigners on Taiwan. The aborigines are the natives. And they are reliable KMT voters. Should they also be kicked over to the PRC because they don’t want Taiwanese Independence?
Ever been to Kinmen? They get almost nothing from the influx of mainlanders except a larger water treatment bill for all the flushed toilets. Chinese are just passing through, and having little movements.
In any case, it’s pretty sick in any case to argue that the Kinmenese will suffer under the DPP: they were crushed under Martial Law for 40 years but received quite good care under the DPP, with most villages getting restored.
Tourism is the only sensible path for Kinmen and that requires a DPP government which puts local development and local culture at the front. Under the KMT they will just get shat on again, literally this time.
An Aboriginal master student involved in last year’s Sun flower social movement made it very clear that most Aboriginals vote for the KMT because KMT has created a social environment that limits the Aboriginal’s way of life.
By restricting hunting, taking away traditional lands and putting a price clamp on agriculture, most Aboriginals who do not wish to move into the cities are forced to rely on outside financial supports, and KMT is then happy to give them that money when election time comes around. Those who were robbed of their traditional territories and moved into the cities often are subjected to doing menial labor and living in sub-standard conditions, like next to a river bed, where they are then forced to relocate to nowhere every several years.
I don’t think KMT should feel proud about this situation and brag about how they are winning Aboriginal votes.
An Aboriginal master student involved in last year’s Sun flower social movement made it very clear that most Aboriginals vote for the KMT because KMT has created a social environment that limits the Aboriginal’s way of life.
By restricting hunting, taking away traditional lands and putting a price clamp on agriculture, most Aboriginals who do not wish to move into the cities are forced to rely on outside financial supports, and KMT is then happy to give them that money when election time comes around. Those who were robbed of their traditional territories and moved into the cities often are subjected to doing menial labor and living in sub-standard conditions, like next to a river bed, where they are then forced to relocate to nowhere every several years.
I don’t think KMT should feel proud about this situation and brag about how they are winning Aboriginal votes.[/quote]
Interesting viewpoint on Taiwan’s native people. I keep hearing various types of government support for them like special treatment for entering high schools and universities and education financial support. Actually, many “Chinese” people who have any blood relations with native people are actually registering themselves as a native person in order to get all of the government sponsored benefits (often changing their names to reflect their native heritage). You say those that move to the city are screwed and those that stay at home are screwed. I find it not so easy to blame KMT for all of the native people’s current plight/problems. Taking away traditional lands can’t be the cause of all their problems. There are plenty of native persons with their own land. What exactly is the KMT or DPP for that matter supposed to do to support native people? Is there enough wildlife so they can live and hunt in the mountains using their traditional lifestyles? Maybe I need some more input to see how DPP policy is better for native persons.
I constantly find it amusing how large Jinmen looms in the minds of some Blue supporters regarding the Taiwan question. As a Red (and among my like minded friends) I’ve never heard anyone express any thoughts about Jinmen . . . And among the Greens I know, Jinmen never comes up either except along the lines of “let them pick wherever they want to go.” Maybe the Blue fascination wth Jinmen is something about securing greater “legitimacy” for the ROC as it rules more than just Taiwan “province.”
In any event, I think it has been discussed before that after Red Unification or Green Independence comes to Taiwan, Jinmen should be allowed the choice to remain the “Republic of China.” The entirety of the last LY on Taiwan can move to Jinmen and after a period of 40 years of a tutelage, the Jinmenese will finally be allowed to elect the president whole LY. While the nation’s official name will be “Republic of China (Jinmen)” they will of course be known in most international organizations as “Chinese Jincheng.”
Another potential area of Red and Green cooperation is using Jinmen as the final resting place for the Grate Leader and the Deer Leader. The Greens don’t want the father-son duo buried in Taiwan and the Reds don’t want them returns to the mainland. Jinmen is perfect. It is still part of China, but not on Taiwan or the mainland. Moreover, Jinmen loomed especially large in the history and plans of the Grate Leader. All statues and busts of the Grate Leader and the Deer Leader can be moved from Taiwan to Jinmen (will likely outnumber the residents!) thus creating an hour even more curious tourist attraction for mainland visitors. With luck, the only surviving grandson, (aka the Yang/羊 Leader, as he seems to be doing well and won a primary among the yang in his district) will become the President of the Republic of China (Jinmen) and can carefully conserve the family dynastic tomb in the sovereign ROC!
Ethnicity is not the basis of a modern nation.[/quote]
What is the foundation of a modern nation?[/quote]
Most modern nations encompasses an area which includes more than just one ethnicity. The foundation of such a nation-state should be self-identification with the political culture of the state. In Taiwan’s case, the political culture would be liberty, and democracy.
Oh, you mean like Hoklo committing genocide in Taiwan and stealing all farmland from Aboriginals and then crying about 228 as if they were the only victim in Taiwan’s history and the island’s rightful sovereigns? Now that’s such a great way of laying a foundation for liberty and democracy.
Oh, you mean like Hoklo committing genocide in Taiwan and stealing all farmland from Aboriginals and then crying about 228 as if they were the only victim in Taiwan’s history and the island’s rightful sovereigns? Now that’s such a great way of laying a foundation for liberty and democracy.[/quote]
Pretty doubtful anyone who lost anything in 228 was also responsible in any direct way for aboriginal land theft. But as I have said before, if you aren’t being a complete disingenuous troll then start a thread on aboriginal land theft and what we can do to rectify the injustices of the past. You do care about rectifying the injustices of the past right? I mean, I hate to be cynical, but you aren’t simply bringing up Hoklo theft in the 18th century as a cheap distraction are you?
Oh, you mean like Hoklo committing genocide in Taiwan and stealing all farmland from Aboriginals and then crying about 228 as if they were the only victim in Taiwan’s history and the island’s rightful sovereigns? Now that’s such a great way of laying a foundation for liberty and democracy.[/quote]
A. Early immigrants, including officials and immigrants of Dutch, Spanish, Dongning, and Qing did oppress Aobriginals who did not cooperate with them, either through brute force or coercion. It was wrong and it should be taught as a part of history so such intolerance wouldn’t take place again on this island. However, most Taiwanese Holo people that you are referring to are descendents of the oppressed Pingpu Aboriginals to begin with. What you are doing is blaming the destruction of their tradition on them and their ancestors who suffered in the first place. I find that to be a very odd thing to do.
B. Committing massacres is wrong period.
C. 228 has nothing to do with Holo oppression of Aboriginal people. KMT’s army killed aboriginals during 228 and white terror as well. Many Aboriginal elites such as Walis Wumi, Uyongu Yata’uyungana, Yapasuyongʉ Yulunana, and many more were killed.
D. I really don’t see how your reply remotely addresses my original point about the foundation of a modern nation.
An Aboriginal master student involved in last year’s Sun flower social movement made it very clear that most Aboriginals vote for the KMT because KMT has created a social environment that limits the Aboriginal’s way of life.
By restricting hunting, taking away traditional lands and putting a price clamp on agriculture, most Aboriginals who do not wish to move into the cities are forced to rely on outside financial supports, and KMT is then happy to give them that money when election time comes around. Those who were robbed of their traditional territories and moved into the cities often are subjected to doing menial labor and living in sub-standard conditions, like next to a river bed, where they are then forced to relocate to nowhere every several years.
I don’t think KMT should feel proud about this situation and brag about how they are winning Aboriginal votes.[/quote]
Interesting viewpoint on Taiwan’s native people. I keep hearing various types of government support for them like special treatment for entering high schools and universities and education financial support. Actually, many “Chinese” people who have any blood relations with native people are actually registering themselves as a native person in order to get all of the government sponsored benefits (often changing their names to reflect their native heritage). You say those that move to the city are screwed and those that stay at home are screwed. I find it not so easy to blame KMT for all of the native people’s current plight/problems. Taking away traditional lands can’t be the cause of all their problems. There are plenty of native persons with their own land. What exactly is the KMT or DPP for that matter supposed to do to support native people? Is there enough wildlife so they can live and hunt in the mountains using their traditional lifestyles? Maybe I need some more input to see how DPP policy is better for native persons.[/quote]
Again, giving minorities (in terms of positions of social power) special treatments isn’t something to be proud of. It is necessary but special treatments shouldn’t be the end of bringing minorities social equality. In the case of Taiwanese Aboriginals I hope the end goal of any Taiwan government is to give Aboriginals the resources and equalities that they deserve, which will allow them to be rightfully represented in positions of social power even without special treatments.
By that I mean make all Aboriginal languages as Taiwan’s national languages. Have tests, education be given in their own languages. Have an Aboriginal only council where they have the budget which equals to the budget of a county, and let all Aboriginals decide where and what to improve. Find a balance between tradition and ecology preservation. There are so many things that needs to be addressed regarding Aboriginal rights here in Taiwan. I look forward to the day when people will elect a legislature that would actually address these things. They can start by not voting for those legislator who blocked the National Language Development Law back in 2007.
You can often write very eloquently about independence and freedom from repression, however, given your views on the Kinmenese and the Aborigines, I’m not sure you’ve really thought things through about what they mean beyond your own self-interests. There is no value added to Taiwan’s current society under a Republic of Taiwan vs a Republic of China. I would argue that it would only make the US and China angry and that’s not in the best interests of the citizens on any of the islands that the Republic of China administers.
I find it ironic when ABCs support Chinese annexation of Taiwan by arguing that ethnicity is the fundamental aspect in any nation state given the implications of that for their own status in the US.
I am an ABC and I support unification, but not on ethno-national grounds (I don’t believe that “because people in Taiwan and China are all Chinese they should all be part of One China.”). A shared ethnic and cultural heritage could help make unification easier but I don’t believe that ethnic tribalism should drive political decisions.
As an ABC, and thus an Asian American, I am very conscious that the U.S. not that long ago imprisoned over a hundred thousand Asian Americans (Japanese Americans specifically, most of whom were citizens!) based on fears of their ethnicity.
And is there value added if Taiwan becomes Hong Kong 2.0? That’s where KMT’s current policies and continuing down Chu’s “Taiwan is China, the same China as China, but not exactly” trick will lead down the road.
And is there value added if Taiwan becomes Hong Kong 2.0? That’s where KMT’s current policies and continuing down Chu’s “Taiwan is China, the same China as China, but not exactly” trick will lead down the road.[/quote]
Well, I rather not live in some banana republic based on the idea that Hoklo are the rightful sovereigns of the land. The similarity between Voortrekkers descendants (=Afrikaaner) and Hoklo as well as TSU and the former National Party of South Africa is worrying to say the least.
And is there value added if Taiwan becomes Hong Kong 2.0? That’s where KMT’s current policies and continuing down Chu’s “Taiwan is China, the same China as China, but not exactly” trick will lead down the road.[/quote]
Well, I rather not live in some banana republic based on the idea that Hoklo are the rightful sovereigns of the land. The similarity between Voortrekkers descendants (=Afrikaaner) and Hoklo as well as TSU and the former National Party of South Africa is worrying to say the least.[/quote]
Say if you are right, there is only 1 kind of TI supporters out there, and they are all molded out of hsinhai’s worst nightmare. How is it less preferable than some banana republic based on the idea that KMT elites or CPP elites are the rightful sovereigns of the land?
My worst nightmare is that Taiwan can’t be a democracy that can decide its own future. Same goes with most TI supporters I know. None of them wants a Holo dominant state. If that’s the case the DPP wouldn’t have pushed for the inclusion of all Aboriginal languages into the National Language Development Act back in 2007.
A person might have been able to peddle this paranoia in the 90s, but after an 8 year DPP admin in which life went on in Taiwan as normal you have to be mentally defective to propose such zombie ideas as a plausible worry. I don’t think you are mentally defective so why do you bring up such things? What’s your agenda?