The Flawed "Indigenous Nation" Idea for Taiwan

I have just finished listening to a podcast episode in which Professor Shu-mei Shih was interviewed. Professor Shih genuinely supports Taiwan and opposes China's hegemony; however...

The idea of Taiwan becoming an "indigenous nation" is impractical and very dangerous. First, the academic community has already questioned whether all Taiwanese people, as she claims, have indigenous blood. Second, even if they did, would most Taiwanese people be able to shift their identity to Taiwanese indigenous peoples?

Don't misunderstand, I strongly support indigenous rights. I advocate for the restoration of traditional territories, the establishment of indigenous autonomous regions, and I believe every Taiwanese person should learn indigenous languages.

The problem is: the "indigenous nation" idea would immediately lead to a "hollowing out" of Taiwanese subjectivity, which is very detrimental to Taiwanese consciousness.

Think about it! In a society where most people don't understand indigenous languages, aren't familiar with Indigenous cultures, and lack an indigenous consciousness, if they suddenly abandon their own culture and heritage language to become something they don't understand (indigenous people), how long would it take for Taiwanese identity and culture to be re-established?

In reality, such a cultural, identity, and linguistic transformation isn't guaranteed to succeed even under an autocratic regime, let alone a democratic society!

Those who hold such views are, to some extent, poisoned by the concept of settler colonialism. They accept the identity of being perpetrators, and consequently, they feel that their own language (Taiwanese) and culture (Taiwanese culture) are guilty and don't belong to Taiwan!

This idea is terrifying! The result would be the self-destruction of the most significant and representative content of Taiwanese identity—Taiwanese and Taiwanese culture. And because indigenous and Hakka cultures are minorities, they wouldn't be able to fill the void. The ultimate outcome would be an empty space, allowing Chinese language and culture to become the default core of Taiwan.

I just don't get it! Settler colonialism exists all over the world, differing only in whether it occurred in ancient or contemporary times. Why should Taiwan, alone, be "handled" in this specific way? And precisely because Taiwan faces the threat from China, this kind of discourse becomes even more dangerous!

Taiwan is, of course, multilingual and multicultural, just like every other country in the world. However, the representative language of Taiwanese subjectivity and identity is "Taiwanese," and the representative culture is "Taiwanese culture." This point is consistent with practices in every country worldwide. We do not need to concede on this point, nor should we.

If we concede, it's only China's language and content that will take center stage, not Indigenous languages.

A Skewed Focus in Taiwanese Cultural Studies by Foreign Scholars

Do you know any foreign scholars who specialize in Taiwan studies? I don't know many, but I've attended lectures and interviews by a few, and I've noticed a phenomenon: apart from politics, history, and international relations, whenever they discuss Taiwanese "culture" or "environment," their research is exclusively focused on indigenous peoples.

Think about it, what if...

 * Studying American culture meant only studying the cultures of various indigenous American tribes.

 * Studying Spanish culture meant only studying the culture of the Basques (Indigenous people of Spain).

 * Studying British culture meant only studying Welsh culture.

 * Studying Japanese culture meant only studying Ainu culture.

Wouldn't you find that extremely strange?

If so, why is it that foreign scholars who study Taiwan culture only seem interested in indigenous cultures?

I'm guessing... just a guess! They probably feel that Taiwan's "non-indigenous" population isn't very interesting because they assume that Taiwan's "non-Indigenous" people are simply "Chinese," the "Han people" also found in China, and therefore don't require special study in Taiwan.

In short, they might assume that Taiwan's "non-Indigenous" people lack "Taiwanese-ness" or a "Taiwanese subjectivity." Furthermore, they might even view Taiwan's "non-Indigenous" people as perpetrators of settler colonialism, making them morally less appealing to be investigated.

It's also no wonder they insist on calling "Taiwanese" (Tai-gi) "Taiwanese Hokkien" or "Taiwan(ese) Southern Min," perhaps because they believe this language isn't qualified to represent Taiwan. But sorry to say, similar linguistic and social compositions exist elsewhere in the world. Why is Taiwan singled out and treated this way?

This might be something that some people have "taught" them. Who taught them? Let's think. Besides China, those who wish to eradicate Taiwanese subjectivity are likely a few confused or pro-China Taiwanese scholars.

In fact, the culture of Taiwan's "non-indigenous" people is, of course, different from China's. To treat them as the same without in-depth research—what kind of scholars are these?

Moreover, Taiwan's "non-indigenous" people are the main body and representatives of Taiwanese culture. This follows the norm worldwide. We just need to look at the main ethnic groups of American, Spanish, British, and Japanese cultures to understand this.

We must resist this distortion of Taiwanese cultural research!

Furthermore, the majority of people in most countries worldwide are descendants of settlers. Before accusing Taiwan's "non-indigenous" people using the framework of settler colonialism, let the entire world collectively admit its sins. Do not use this label to singularly assign blame to Taiwan's "non-indigenous" people, and do not subconsciously use this as a reason to exclude them from Taiwanese cultural research.

Nay, settler colonialism

I think the claims about the U.S., Canada, Taiwan, and Singapore having settler colonialism, and the idea that later victims were once perpetrators, are very "hypocritical." Why? Because these academics are looking at the world with a "double standard"!

Take the UK, Korea, and Spain... Can you find any place on Earth without issues of settler colonialism? If you can, other than the Amazon, it's only because the indigenous people there have already been wiped out! After the extinction of the local indigenous people, some left historical records (like the Celts), but I think most didn't even leave a trace. On that note, only the Basques are the indigenous people of Spain, but not the Spaniards. The Korean Peninsula has had human traces since the Stone Age, and the current Korean people also migrated there later. When they migrated, did they "get along peacefully"?

I'm not against examining the colonization and transgressions of settlers, but please don't turn a blind eye to the "much earlier" and "unrecorded" pasts everywhere else in the world, treating them as if they never happened, just absolving them and declaring them innocent!

Honestly, even the indigenous peoples of Taiwan didn't all arrive at the same time. What do you think happened between the "indigenous" people who arrived later and those who were already there?

Conflicts constantly happen during human migration, driven by the struggle for resources and ambition. This is humanity's original sin. Using a double standard to scrutinize only a few places makes me sick to my stomach.

And this kind of double standard is just as hypocritical as their view on language names. Is there any place in the world with a single ethnic group and a single language? Why is it okay for the Italian language to be called Italian, Vietnamese to be called Vietnamese, and Balinese and Chinese to be used as language names, but Taiwanese has to be renamed Taiwanese Hokkien? Double standard! Hypocrite!