3. ii
Content
1.Introduction.............................................................................................................................1
2. A Brief history of Taiwan‟s indigenous peoples ...................................................................2
2.1 Taiwan‟s first immigrants................................................................................................2
2.2 On the history of indigenous development ......................................................................4
2.2.1 The Seediq ................................................................................................................4
2.2.2 The Babuza ...............................................................................................................9
2.3 Recent development in indigenous tribal articulation ...................................................11
3. Contemporary indigeneity ...................................................................................................12
3.1 Legal changes.................................................................................................................12
3.2 Indigenous Taiwan in the 21st
century...........................................................................13
3.2.1 The iconic case of Orchid island‟s nuclear waste...................................................13
3.2.2 Displacement for developments sake......................................................................14
3.2.3 The criminal indigenous hunter ..............................................................................16
4. The politics of indigeneity ...................................................................................................17
4.1 Tribal political dynamics ...............................................................................................17
5. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................19
6. Literature..........................................................................................................................21
4. 1
Indigenous Taiwan: a short
introduction
1.Introduction
“Embiyax su hug?” (how are you?) he asked his friend1
. “Embiyax ku!” (I am fine), she said.
He asked her if she was going to stay. No, she said “Mha name mgrig” (we‟re going to
dance). “Iyah tuhuy duri ha!” (Come back again, all right!) he replied. She said she would,
and wandered off2
. This is the Truku language, one of Taiwan‟s 16 officially recognized
indigenous tribes. In the past such a conversation may have taken place. Today it is much
more unlikely, even though there is a sense of indigenous revival taking place in Taiwan. In
fact, if it were not for a passage in a book „theorizing and analyzing agency in second
language learning‟ (Deters et al., 2014), I would not have known about it either. Why is it,
you may ask, that this language was spoken in Taiwan in the past? And why is it spoken
much less nowadays? Why is it currently taught as a second language?
It are these questions, that this article is concerned with. And not only for the Truku
tribe; this article serves as a brief introduction to Taiwan‟s indigenous peoples as a whole.
We will see their fascinating history reaching much beyond their own border. Madagascar to
Easter island, expansionary colonialism to World War II, and much more, is all part of
Taiwan‟s indigenous peoples history. More importantly, this will help us understand the
contemporary position of indigeneity in Taiwanese society. For this purpose, the article is
divided in three mains sections. First, we will go through a brief history of Taiwan‟s
indigenous peoples. Then, the article will shift its focus to the present; we will zoom in on the
contemporary status of Taiwan‟s indigenous peoples. Last, we address the politics involved
in articulating indigeneity. As we will see, there is much more to this topic than meets the
eye. After having covered these topics, a brief conclusion is provided.
While skimming through the literature list, it may strike as peculiar that exclusively
English sources were used for the article. Indeed, language restrictions limited the review to
English sources, which also narrows the scope of the investigation. Even in English,
however, there is a considerable number of sources available, and most certainly enough for
an introduction. Then, it is important to emphasize that this article is indeed a review, and
should be understood as a compilation of other sources to introduce Taiwan‟s indigenous
peoples. Sources consist of newspaper articles, academic articles, books, museum visits, and
videos and documentaries. Empirical research – in this case interviews – only form a
marginal part of the sources. But without further ado, let us turn towards the principle focus
of the article. Let us first dive into the past.
1
„Embiyax su hug‟ literally translates „are you strong?‟, as the Truku people lived in high altitude areas, only
the strong can survive life in the rugged terrain. Source: http://www.ketagalanmedia.com/2015/07/07/taiwanese-
indigenous-peoples/
2
Source of Truku language: Deters et al. (2014, p. 258).
5. 2
2. A Brief history of Taiwan’s indigenous peoples
Determining the past can be, like determining the future, incredibly difficult and sometimes
proves impossible. And while the future is only ever coming closer, the gap between the now
and the past is increasing with every minute passing away, making it only harder to reveal its
mysteries. Taiwan‟s past proves to be no exception; there is, for example, discussion on the
origin of the Taiwanese indigenous peoples, their role in the development of the Austronesian
language family, and it proves incredibly challenging to apprehend the history of the
manifold indigenous tribes – some of which still exist to a greater or lesser extent today. In
short, many different facets of indigenous Taiwan‟s history we can look at. Let us start with a
general introduction to Taiwan‟s indigenous history.
2.1 Taiwan’s first immigrants
While trying to prevent embarking on an existential quest as to „where do we come from?‟,
for the purpose of understanding Taiwan‟s indigenous peoples it is paramount to understand
their historical roots. It is generally believed that Taiwan‟s indigenous peoples relate to
different groups of people that arrived in Taiwan between 5.000 and 3.000 B.C., each having
their own distinct cultures – in the sense that they exhibit different languages, social and
family structures, and physical make-ups (Lin et al., 2000, p. 6). Were these, then, the first
human inhabitants of Taiwan?
No, archeological sites show that as soon as 30.000 before present (B.P.) there were
people living in Taiwan already. In the west of Taiwan physical remains (bone structure,
teeth, etc.) indicate this, while in the east of Taiwan cultural remains were found (pots, tools,
houses, etc.). What the relation is between the archeological findings in the west and east of
Taiwan remains unclear3
, but it sure dates a long way back. So what happened to these
people, then? Do these people relate to Taiwan‟s indigenous people? Again, no; there is no
relation between these „first settlers‟ and Taiwan‟s indigenous people. In fact, there is a gap
of 24.000 year between these two groups which remains a puzzle for Taiwanese and foreign
archeologists alike4
. It is, however, generally accepted that Taiwan‟s earliest inhabitants have
either gone extinct or moved elsewhere, as no remains have been found to indicate they
resided in Taiwan longer.
Instead of theorizing about the first immigrants, let us zoom back to Taiwan‟s
indigenous peoples; where did these different groups come from 5000 to 3000 B.P.?
Different explanations have been proposed, but no conclusive answer can yet be given. It has
been argued that Taiwanese tribes have a Southern origin, tracing them all the way back to
the Burma-Yunnan frontier, from which they would have traveled down the Yangtze river,
eventually ending up in Taiwan (see e.g. Blust, 1996; Li et al., 2008). Perhaps the Taiwanese
indigenous tribes have a Northern origin, explained to be another possible explanation (Lin et
al. 2000, p. 6; see also Ko et al., 2000, p. 7). Perhaps that is the answer, or perhaps a
combination of the proposed explanations. Perhaps an altogether different theory will become
the locus of scientific debate later. Many brilliant minds have promulgated different
3
Information on Taiwan‟s earliest inhabitants collected during an interview with [Name researcher] on March
30th
, 2016.
4
Ibid.
6. 3
explanations, but only the future can tell if the mind-puzzling case of Taiwan‟s indigenous‟
peoples past will be definitely resolved.
Interestingly, and very much related to the origin of Taiwan‟s indigenous people,
Taiwan plays a prominent role in understanding the origin of what is called the Austronesian
language family – reaching from Madagascar in the West to Easter Island in the East, from
Taiwan in the North to New Zealand in the South (see figure one). It has been argued that the
origin of these related languages lay in Taiwan (e.g. Bellwood, 1995; Blust, 1999; Diamond,
2000). As part of the explanation, it has been pointed out that there exists a high diversity
among languages of Taiwan‟s indigenous peoples. Much higher, for example, than among
Malayo-Polynesians, another branch of the Austronesian language family (Li et al., 2008, p.
147). This principle that a high diversity of languages indicates the origin of a language is a
broadly accepted principle in linguistics5
. For example, in Great-Britain, too, there is a
relatively high diversity in dialects as opposed to the United States and Canada – implicating
that English in the United States and Canada has developed later. Moreover, pots, tools, and
bones found in the Pacific outside New Guinea indicate a direct link to inhabitants from
Taiwan belonging to the Austronesian Language Family (Diamond, 2000, p. 70). Time for a
definite conclusion?
Not quite. An alternative hypothesis is that people coming to Taiwan from South
Coastal China and South-East Asia were already Austronesians, and not „proto‟-
Austronesians that developed the language fully in Taiwan and then spread to other parts (Li
et al., 2008, p. 147). In other words, the Austronesian language does not find its roots in
Taiwan, but instead developed before already. This explanation is also supported by research
5
Since a study by Edward Sapir in 1968 on Aboriginal American culture.
Figure one: The Austronesian language family.
Derived from Wikimedia, March 9, 2016.
7. 4
on the genetic structure: Eastern Austronesians are distinctly different from Western
Austronesian (Li et al., 2008, p. 147), and it is therefore unlikely that they both originate in
Taiwan. It seems that, once again, time has thus far managed to mystify the quest for the past,
like clouds slowly forming to eventually cover the stars. Will there ever be an undisputed
answer to these questions? Perhaps. It remains undisputed, however, that Taiwan‟s role in the
history of Austronesian languages and culture is tremendous.
2.2 On the history of indigenous development
For now, let us leave the scientific debate on the origin of Taiwan‟s indigenous peoples and
their language behind us, and instead accept that it does indeed go a long way back. Crucially
missing in the previous passage is an introduction to the life of Taiwan‟s indigenous peoples.
What was it like to be indigenous? How has indigenous life changed over time? What are the
recent developments in indigenous articulation? To introduce the reader to the lives and
history of Taiwan‟s indigenous peoples, this section presents, as accurately as possible, the
chronological development of two different indigenous tribes, the Seediq and Babuza. Let us
start with examining the development of the Seediq tribe.
2.2.1 The Seediq
The Seediq tribe lived primarily in the mountains around
what is now called Hualien and Nantou county. A set of
taboos called Gaya instructs the rules of social conduct,
agriculture, hunting season to ceremonies and war
behavior6
. In the Seediq tribe, there are men and boys,
women and girls. What separates the women from girls?
The practice of mastering the art of weaving, a crucial
aspect of the Seediq culture as women need to master the
art of weaving to make clothes for her family.
Interestingly, the Seediq (and Atayal in general) value the
natural way in which the learning process should take
place – it thus needs to happen from the interest of the
child, and not forced by elders7
.What separates the men
from the boys? Hunting. Headhunting, to be more precise.
A Seediq man is only a man after having cut of his first
head of the enemy. After girls master the art of weaving,
and boys cut off the head of an enemy, they become women
and men through the most important of cultural practices
known to the Seediq: they will receive their facial tattoo. Only after being tattooed, men and
women can marry.
6
Source: National Museum of Natural Science (2012):
http://www.nmns.edu.tw/nmns_eng/04exhibit/Temporary/exhibitis/Seediq.htm, accessed March 28, 2016.
7
Information on the weaving process received at an exhibition on indigenous weaving at Academia Sinica,
Taiwan on February 15, 2016.
Figure two: Nantou County (left, in red) and
Hualien County (right, in red).
Adapted from Wikimedia, April 11, 2016.
8. 5
When the Unwanted Visitor arrives, and it is time for a Seediq man or woman to cross
the rainbow bridge to the land of their ancestral hunting ground, once again weaving and
headhunting prove to be important. It is only when a Seediq man arrives with blood on his
hands, that he is allowed to cross the rainbow bridge to join his ancestors. It is only when a
Seediq woman can present her hands calloused by weaving, that she is allowed to cross the
rainbow bridge to join her ancestors8
. Generation after generation the Seediq tribe lived in the
Taiwanese mountains with relatively few changes. It was not until the arrival of the first
8
Source: Savage Minds blog (2012): http://savageminds.org/2012/01/04/seediq-bale-as-history/, accessed
March 14, 2016
Box one – on the tattooing practices of the Paiwan tribe
Like the Seediq people, the Paiwan people have a rich history of tattooing. For the Paiwan, there is a
distinctively precise procedure when it comes to tattooing. One has to get permission first, which
happens through honor the family heads by calling on them to gain permission – if necessary with the
help of home-brewed wine. It is the elders who decide on the design of the tattoo, a decision also
determined by the rank of the individual receiving the tattoo (the Paiwan tribe is known for their
hierarchical structure).
And the tattooing process itself is much more than tattooing only. The cultural practices indicate that
a blessing ceremony has to be carried out before the tattooing, a stone platform would be selected for
the tattooing process, the entrance will be closed by a fence, and pregnant women were not allowed
to be tattooed or come close to someone who is being tattooed. Further, for practical reasons
tattooing is to happen during the coolness of the winter, as otherwise one runs the risks of having the
tattoo becoming inflamed because of sweat (if this happened, the tattooing process is regarded has
having failed).
The tattooing itself happens with a needle (made from
pomelo tree or iron) with which the tattoo marks were
made. Subsequently, charcoal is used to daub onto the
tattoo marks in order to give it its color. The process
for both hands takes about two days. For men, who
have larger parts of their bodies tattooed, it could take
much longer. The process of tattooing is experienced
as being incredibly painful, and it thus requires a great
deal of willpower and determination in order to get it
done (see figure three for example of a tattoo).
Luckily, once the tattooing process is over, friends
and family were there to take care of you. Then there is only one step left in the tattooing process:
thanking the tattoo master. Iron cooking pots, a set of clothes, iron hoes or rakes are all common
tokens of appreciation.
Figure three: Paiwan hand tattoo.
Retrieved from
http://www.dmtip.gov.tw/Eng/Paiwan.htm, April 6,
2016
9. 6
colonizers that things slowly began to change. From the perspective of the Seediq people, it
was then that dark clouds slowly began to cover the sky.
It was in 1624 and 1626 when the Dutch and Spanish colonizers arrived in Taiwan,
respectively. The Spanish, who settled in the North, did not take a specific interest in
administering or expanding their territory. The Dutch, however, whom defeated the Spanish
in 1642, undertook multiple efforts to pacify the indigenous people, eventually establishing
peace with several tribes. In turn, the Dutch introduced a feudal tax system, preached the
word of God to indigenous people, and educated them in a Western sense of the word.
Relatively few tribes lost their autonomy, however, and the Seediq people, living in the
mountains, have probably seen very little of the Dutch and Spanish colonizers (Alliance of
Taiwan Aborigines, 1993).
A development that started during Dutch colonization, was the immigration of Han-
Chinese people to the island of Taiwan, whom settled there both for business and agricultural
purposes. This influx especially increased after the start of civil war in China in 1645, which
eventually caused Cheng Cheng-Kung (also known as Coxinga) to retreat to Taiwan in
1661, after having won a short but fierce battle against the Dutch9
. A new ruler means new
rules, and Coxinga‟s claims to Taiwan, and subsequently the claims by the Qing Dynasty
from 1683 to 1895 were no good news for Taiwan‟s indigenous people. The number of Han
Chinese on the island grew from 100.000 to over 3.000.000 (Alliance of Taiwan Aborigines,
1993), and the steady increase of Han Chinese meant that many indigenous cultures from the
plains were slowly assimilated by Han culture. Other indigenous tribes retreated to the
mountains in Taiwan, trying to stay safe from the new colonizers grabbing indigenous land
and exploiting indigenous labor forces (Simon, 2010, p. 2). The Qing‟s dynasty‟s „divide and
rule‟ policy, and indigenous peoples will to protect their land and tribal territorial lines,
caused countless conflicts between Han people and Taiwan‟s indigenous peoples. Again,
however, the Seediq mountain tribe pulled through relatively unharmed, and until the end of
the Qing dynasty the mountains and Eastern plains were effectively under control of the
indigenous peoples (Alliance of Taiwan Aborigines, 1993). Oral history of the Seediq‟s
suggest that it is only in Nantou where the Seediq people had contact with the Qing dynasty
to establish some form of chiefdom for the purpose of indirect rule (Simon, 2010, p. 730).
The importance of the Seediq‟s mountainous living area is emphasized by a Chinese travel
writer, who saw the transformation of nature as a key aspect of transforming the indigenous
people: “if we could burn the swamps and mountains and flatten the blocked defiles, then
after a few decades we would be able to transform the thorny tickets into level roads and
transform the descendants of [the mythical dog] Panhu into good subjects” (Teng, 2006, p.
135) (for an explanation of the reference to the mythical dog Panhu, see box two). It is clear,
however, that The Seediq people‟s mountainous territory been of utmost importance for their
survival thus far.
9
Source: VoC Kenniscentrum [in Dutch]: http://www.voc-kenniscentrum.nl/gewest-formosa.html, March 28,
2016.
10. 7
However, the dark clouds that were packing in the Seediq sky burst open when the
Qing government lost the Sino-Japanese war and Japan took control over Taiwan in 1895.
It was the systematic control of Taiwan, and Japans will to exploit Taiwan‟s economic
resources that heavily affected the subsistence lifestyle of the Seediq people. The Japanese
took control over Taiwan‟s mineral resources, forests, water, and tourism potential. In order
to do so, indigenous peoples were contained in „Mountain reservations‟, limiting their
traditional territory of 2.000.000 hectares down to 24.000 hectares (Alliance of Taiwan
Aborigines, 1993). The Japanese actively tried to „civilize‟ the Seediq tribe by encouraging
them to use Japanese names, and forcing them to use Japanese in a compulsory elementary
school program. Through these practices, Seediq‟s social systems, and economic and political
culture began to collapse. After numerous quarrels and attempted „civilization‟ of the Seediq
people by the Japanese, an organized violent resistance documented as the Wushe (or Musha)
incident took place in 1930.
During an annual sports event organized in Wushe to celebrate the thirty-fifth year of
Japanese colonial rule – an event attended also by the Japanese colonial provincial governor
and police officials – the Seediq struck. To be more specific, the Seediq Tkdaya attacked,
while two other Seediq groups, the Toda and Truku, did not10
. 300 Tkdaya Seediq
indigenous peoples seemed to come out of nowhere, killing as many Japanese as possible
with the rifles, guns, and swords they were carrying (Ching, 2000, p. 798). In total, 134
10
In 2004, the Truku were recognized as a tribe separate from the Atayal after a „name rectification campaign‟.
This upset the Seediq people, whom allege that indigenization is used for political gains. The Seediq, in turn,
lobbied to be officially recognized as a tribe different from the Truku, an appeal endorsed in 2008.
Box two: Origin of the Seediq Truku people (adapted from Kim, 1980 in Simon, 2015,
pp. 694-696)
In the Seediq myth, dogs were the fathers of humanity, and could speak with humans. In
their daily practices, Seediq people had dogs as hunting partners with whom daily meals
and even sacrificial pork was shared. One may notice that Simon (2015) refers to „Seediq
Truku‟ and not as the „Seediq‟, more details on this classification will follow later. For
now, let us have a look at the The Seediq Panhu myth, which is as follows:
One day, as the first woman was about to nap under her usual tree, she found a sleeping
dog. She asked what he could do, and he replied that he would do anything she asked.
Subsequently, he followed her everywhere and faithfully obeyed her commands. One day,
the dog proposed marriage. When she refused, he fled into the forest. In regret, she
searched for him everywhere. A pig appeared and suggested that she walked toward the
rising sun.
On the fourth day, she found him and they married, giving birth to a son name Skum Awi.
The dog father taught him hunting and all the skills that humans need. Later, Skum Awi
accidentally killed his father while trying to shoot a deer. Skum Awi married his mother.
Their offspring increased, becoming the Seejiq Truku (Truku People) who spread
throughout the mountains.
11. 8
Japanese men, women, and children were slain11
. The Japanese could only gaze with surprise
and amazement, as the Seediq‟s territories were before praised by the Japanese as
„enlightened and complaint‟ (Ching, 2000, p. 798). The Japanese thought it inconceivable to
allow such uprisings, and the subsequent repercussions by the Japanese were unprecedentedly
harsh, changing the course of history for the Seediq people. In total, a military force of at
least around two thousand Japanese soldiers armed with machine guns, rifles, and cannons
attacked the Tkdaya Seediq people. Still unable to subjugate the Tkdaya Seediq warriors –
and in the meanwhile political pressure mounting – the Japanese deployed internationally
banned poisonous mustard gas to wipe out the Tkdaya Seediq men, women, and children of
the different villages (Alliance of Taiwan Aborigines, 1993; Ching, 2000)12
. Those who
survived were confined in a village near Wushe. The Japanese, however, did not allow them
to have any weapons, leaving them virtually „free to be killed‟ by rival Seediq tribes; the
Truku and Toda. Unsurprisingly, this happened shortly after; all Tkdaya Seediq males above
the age of 15 were beheaded by rivaling indigenous tribes whom collaborated with the
Japanese (Takao club, 2016).
The period of Japanese colonization thus certainly had an ever-lasting effect on the
Seediq people. Through a „divide and rule‟ policy the Japanese augmented the rivalries
between different Seediq groups, setting up one against the other in an attempt to subjugate
all to Japanese rule. Still now, decades after the Japanese colonization and Wushe incident,
the wounds have not managed to heal, also since shortly after the Japanese a new colonizer
was knocking on the Seediq‟s door.
Following the defeat of the Japanese in the Second World War, Taiwan was made a
province of the Nationalist (KMT) militarist regime in 1945. Shortly after, the KMT fled
to Taiwan in 1949 after having lost the Chinese civil war. Taiwan was proclaimed to be an
independent country, the Republic of China, with the KMT as its government. For the Seediq
people, then still classified as Atayal (it was only in the early 21st
century that a more
specified distinction was made between the different tribes), KMT rule was little more than
old wine in new bottles. Also in contrast to Qing‟s concept of a loose federation, the KMT
wanted to create a strong Chinese cultural identity, and thus the Seediq were forced to learn
mandarin Chinese, adopt Chinese surnames, and wear Chinese clothes (Harrison, 2003, p.
351). In fact, the government‟s Life Improvement Plan to „make the mountains like the
plains‟ penetrated so far into the Seediq people‟s lives that they were forced to eat with
chopsticks, and eating was to happen in nuclear families instead of with their neighbors
(Simon, 2010, p. 731).
However, rain is not forever, and when the dark clouds burst open and poured down
on the Seediq, it was not the question whether the rain would stop, but when. With the
democratization of Taiwan in the 1980s and 1990s, more ferocious voices arguing for
11
Different accounts exist about the Wushe incident. For example, there is dispute about whether or not the
leader of the Seediq uprising, Mona Rudao, also killed women and children, as it is said this is forbidden by
Gaya rules.
12
Despite the use of mustard still being denied by Japanese rightwing nationalist circles, military records
indicate that mustard gas was indeed used – for the first time in Asia – against the Seediq (Heé, 2014, p. 5)
12. 9
indigenous rights were heard. It is often said that a cultural revival, or cultural renaissance, of
indigeneity is taking place. First, after successful lobbying by social movements, the
constitutions no longer referred to indigenous people as „mountain compatriot‟, but instead
the word „indigenous person‟ was used. Further, indigenous peoples have six political
representatives in the Legislative Yuan, have a full-time aboriginal radio station and
television station, and a Council of Indigenous Peoples was established in 1996. At the same
time, Seediq and other indigenous people continue to face many issues (we will leave this
aside for now, as it is elaborated upon in section three). The extent to which the indigenous
peoples have been assimilated by the dominant culture, or the extent to which the cultural
revival of indigenous peoples will be successful, remains to be seen. The choice of the
indigenous people themselves – insofar one can speak of „the‟ indigenous people as a
uniform group, more on this in section four – remains paramount, and it cannot be questioned
their voices should lead the discussion.
For the Seediq people, dark clouds burst open decades ago, with different colonizers
dominating their land and attempting to assimilate their culture to different extents. Despite
voices of dissent having become more accepted in today‟s society, the indigenous Seediq,
and indigenous people in Taiwan in general, continue to face many issues. For the Seediq
people, the heaviest rain may be over, but they yet await a clear blue sky.
2.2.2 The Babuza
Let us, for the sake of understanding Taiwan‟s indigenous peoples, take a brief look at the
historical trajectory of a different tribe; the Babuza. It has been argued that the Babuza first
arrived in Taiwan at around 1200, and their landing point was likely also the place where
they first settled (Chang, 2012, p. 4416). Living at the west coast of Taiwan, of what is now
known as Yunlin and Chiayi county (see figure three), the
Babuza people farmed the lands. Apart from information
on the „Pingpu‟, an overarching name introduced by the
Japanese to classify the indigenous tribes living in the
plains (Chen, 2008, p. 30), no English sources
specifically on the cultural practices of the Babuza were
found.
Unsurprisingly, this is not a coincidence. The
Babuza tribe happened to have settled in a „colonial
hotspot‟, first to have been discovered by the Dutch in the
mid-17th
century. Later, the Babuza ground served as one
of the main areas where Han Chinese would first arrive
after having crossed the Taiwan strait. Having both the
Dutch and Han settlers arriving in large numbers, the
Babuza faced major changes. The Dutch, whom directly
tried to culturally assimilate the indigenous people, were
to leave at 1661, while the Han settlers were only to
increase in number, both during the Ming Dynasty
Figure four: Yunlin County (bottom, in
red) and Chiayi County (top, in red).
Adapted from Wikimedia, April 11,
2016.
13. 10
from 1661-1683 and during the Qing Dynasty from 1683-1894. Through violence, fraud,
and tactics alien to the Babuza tribe (and indigenous tribes in general) large parts of their land
were taken by the Han people, and it was clear that the Babuza were at a critical junction
when it came to the survival of their people. Broadly speaking, they had two choices: to stay
or to run. Whereas many of the neighboring Tsou tribe decided to flee to higher grounds,
most of the Babuza people decided to stay13
. And what happened to all the Babuza peoples
who stayed?
Cultural assimilation, or arguably cultural integration. Especially during the Qing
dynasty a systematic cultural assimilation policy rapidly changed the lives of the Babuza. The
Qing policy divided Taiwan‟s indigenous people in „raw‟ and „cooked‟ tribes, with raw
indigenous people being constituted as wild savages, unwilling to accept Qing‟s rule. Cooked
savages, on the other hand, were framed as not harmful, primitive people, obeying Qing law,
and willingly performing corvée (Teng, 2006, p. 130). The Babuza staying behind quickly
integrated into Qing‟s society, and were thus termed a cooked tribe. To emphasize the divide
between the civilized and uncivilized, between the cooked and the raw, the Qing dynasty
built an arbitrary barrier made of earth mounds, brick walls, and guard posts (Blundell, 2005,
p. 44). Cultural assimilation was further accelerated through a law which forbade Chinese
settlers from bringing their wives, a law upheld until 1788. Han settlers, thus, intermarried
with local aboriginal women, and so Han surnames were also passed patrilineally (Brown,
2004 in Blundell, 2005, p. 44).
Due to the adoption of Chinese language, Han-Babuza marriages, increasing trade,
and the Qing cultural assimilation policies, most Babuza were no different from Han Chinese
by the end of the Qing rule over Taiwan. This is perhaps best illustrated by the change in the
Qing‟s official policy and literature, which focuses not so much on the difference between
„Han‟ and „savage‟, but much more on the difference between plain dwellers – Han Chinese
and cooked savages – and mountain-dwellers – raw savages and Han Chinese outlaws (Teng,
2006, p. 130). It is therefore not surprising that after Chinq ruled ended, and Japan took
control of Taiwan in 1895, their assimilation policies focused only on the mountain tribes.
By the time the KMT regime came to Taiwan in 1949, ethnic labels of plain indigenes were
canceled on all levels (Chen, 2009, p. 34), thus supposing the complete assimilation of the
plains indigenous peoples into Han culture. Time to say the Babuza peoples, and the culture
of the plains tribes in general, are done with?
Arguably not. With regard to the Babuza, and plains tribes in general, it has been
argued that intermarriage between Han Chinese and plains indigenous peoples caused
acculturation, instead of assimilation. Han Chinese would have thus partly changed their own
practices to the practices of the plains indigenous people (Brown, 2004, p. 140). More
specifically, mothers directly changed Han culture by passing Aborigine cultural ideas and
practices to their children with Han identities. Indirectly, acculturation happened by allowing
identity change to precede most cultural change, so that the new Han were still using
13
Part of the Babuza tribe decided to leave their homegrounds, leaving to the North-East coast and later inwards
to Puli (see Li in Mazas et al., 2008). For the purpose of the argument, the focus is on the Babuza peoples who
decided to stay.
14. 11
Aborigine cultural practices (Ibid, p. 140). Such a perspective completely turns the tables. In
that sense, then, the Han Chinese settlers have been partly assimilated by the indigenous
peoples. The Qing dynasty seems to have been aware, and wary, of this. It was exactly the
intermarriage that the Qing dynasty was afraid of, as they wanted to keep their culture „pure‟
(Zhao, 2013). As a consequence, they forbade intermarriage between Han and indigenous
people. This law was not enforced in practice, thus having far-stretching consequences for the
cultural heritage of indigenous people. Hearing these arguments, one can rightfully claim that
the Han people have not simply assimilated the indigenous plains tribes. On the contrary, it
was much more than a ´one-way´ cultural exportation of the Han to Taiwan and its
indigenous people. It is the indigenous cultures which also changed the cultural practices of
Han Chinese people living in Taiwan.
Apart from these general influences by the Pingpu tribes on Han culture, however, it
is clear as the sun at noon-day that there is only fragments left specifically of the Babuza
culture; the language is marked as extinct, and their culture is for the most part Hanised. In
line with the case made for a cultural renaissance (see section 2.2.1) the heirs of the Babuza
peoples similarly try to revive their culture, and argue for official recognition and political
influence14
. At the moment of writing, however, these requests have yet to be honored, and it
remains to be seen whether they ever will be. With regard to the language and cultural
practices of the Babuza, it seems clear that history has mystified their cultural practices to
such an extent that it is impossible to fully retrieve their habits, knowledge, practices,
wisdom, and all the rest their culture entails. If anything, the Babuza case truly illustrates the
tragedy of lost cultural heterogeneity.
2.3 Recent development in indigenous tribal articulation
From being uniformized as „blacks‟ by Western colonizers in the early 17th
century, being
divided in cooked and raw savages, and later mountain and plain tribes, by the Qing dynasty
in the late 17th
century, to being classified as the „nine tribes‟ (mountain tribes - Koashan)
under Japanese rule in the late 19th
and early 20th
century, Taiwan‟s indigenous people have
been classified in myriad ways under different colonizers. The latest name change for the
indigenous people is from their classification by the KMT as „mountain compatriots‟ and
„plains compatriots‟ to „indigenous person‟ in 1994. At the moment of writing, Taiwan‟s
aboriginal articulation and classification is vivid as never before. With Taiwan‟s recent
democratization functioning as catalyzer opening up public spaces that were previously
suppressed, seven additional tribes have been officially recognized by the government of
Taiwan between 2001 and 2015 (see figure five). This has given rise to a sense of revival of
indigeneity, while still many other tribes are not officially recognized.
14
Source: Taipei Times (2004). http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/print/2004/09/23/2003203987,
accessed March 24, 2016.
15. 12
An interesting example of how Taiwan‟s
indigenous articulation is quickly developing and
changing in terms of government recognition, is the
classification of the Truku (also referred to as Taroko or
Troko), Seediq and Atayal tribe, which is explained in an
article on indigenous Taiwan by Scott Simon (2010).
Whereas the three tribes were formally classified
uniformly as Atayal, in 2004 the Truku were officially
recognized as a distinct tribe. However, the Seediq – a
group within the newly recognized Truku tribe – opposed
being categorized as Truku as their exists a history of
violent conflicts between them (among other events, the
aftermath of the Wushe incident explained in section
2.2.1). Thus, the Seediq lobbied for them to be
recognized as a separate tribe, an appeal endorsed by the
Taiwanese Legislative Yuan in 2008 (Simon, 2010, p.
728).
3. Contemporary indigeneity
“The past is never dead. It is not even past” (Faulkner, 1951)
Understanding the past of Taiwan‟s indigenous people is of paramount importance to
understand their contemporary place in society. Now we have seen how Taiwan‟s indigenous
peoples‟ lives have changed over the past millennia, or at least how the most general changes
affected their lives, it is time to look at their current position in society. In so doing, we will
move beyond the Seediq and Babuza tribe that we have focused on in the previous section,
and instead examine contemporary Taiwanese indigeneity as a whole. For this purpose, we
look at two aspects of contemporary indigeneity. First, legal changes and the current legal
status of indigenous people. Second, we look at contemporary developments that indigenous
people are concerned with.
3.1 Legal changes
With Taiwan‟s democratization in the 1980s and 1990s more attention was paid to the role of
indigenous peoples in Taiwan‟s society. There was a strong call for action to improve the
position of indigenous peoples. From this call for action came not only action, but also
affirmative action. For example, to have the indigenous people on a level playing field with
other people, the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law was passed in 200515
(Phillion et al., 2012, p.
235). This law holds that the government shall guarantee the development of the indigenous
15
Even though the Indigenous Peoples Basic law was passed in 2005, Kuan (2010) explains that the legal
procedure for indigenous peoples to claim their traditional territories is still left unclear, and indigenous peoples
thus need to await the passage of other laws (p. 9)
Figure five: Taiwan’s 16 officially recognized
indigenous tribes as per 2016, with Chinese
and English names.
Picture taken at Ketagalan Culture Centre,
Taipei, March 11, 2016.
16. 13
peoples self-governance, equal status of indigenous peoples with other members of society,
and implement indigenous peoples autonomy in accordance with the will of indigenous
peoples16
In terms of education, the references to indigenous peoples and right to indigenous
education has improved (Phillion et al., 2012, p. 235). Specifically in terms of educating the
indigenous people, affirmative action policies have been installed; there is an „Extra Score
Policy‟ to help indigenous students attend better schools. Taiwanese indigenous students are
required to have a tribal language certificate in order to qualify for extra points on their
examination (Chen & Jacob, 2008, p. 241). Furthermore, there are scholarships available
specifically for indigenous people, the winners of tribal language competitions receive
scholarship to top higher education institutions, and there are specialized academic programs
for indigenous people (Chen & Jacob, 2008, p. 239). The extent to which such policies can be
seen as further assimilating indigenous peoples, instead of reviving and articulating their own
culture, is debatable. This is, however, not the point of elucidating the legal changes here,
and that debate will thus be put aside for now. In any case, it is clear that legal changes have
taken place to strengthen the legal position of indigenous people, and to improve the social
position of indigenous people in society. However, the crucial question that remains is; where
has this taken the indigenous people? What place in society do indigenous people hold, given
these legal changes and affirmative action policies?
3.2 Indigenous Taiwan in the 21st
century
However bright one might want to paint the picture, it is impossible to deny that centuries of
suppression and exploitation have not leveled out after the recent legal changes and
affirmative action policies. Despite the undoubtedly well intended efforts, Taiwan‟s
indigenous peoples remain considerably poorer and lower educated (Crook, 2014, pp. 24-25).
In fact, taking the example of affirmative educational policy, Cheng and Jacob (2008) explain
that indigenous students continue to experience long-held stereotypes and racial
discrimination, as well as non-indigenous peers experiencing it to be unfair that indigenous
students receive extra points on their higher education entrance examination score (p. 240).
Beyond the example of educational issues, there are unfortunately many more contemporary
cases which highlight the continuous struggle indigenous people have to face. Let us look at
three different cases to understand how this struggle is taking place in practice: the iconic
nuclear waste dumping on Orchid island, resistance against dam projects, and the prosecution
of an indigenous hunter.
3.2.1 The iconic case of Orchid island’s nuclear waste.
At the crossroad of environmental justice and indigenous rights, nuclear waste storage on
Orchid (or Lanyu) island has become an iconic case in Taiwan. Home to the Tao (or Yami)
indigenous people – consciously left „untouched‟ by the Japanese, subsequently to become
subject to assimilation policies by the KMT – Orchid island was chosen as a destination to
temporarily store nuclear waste in 1982 (Chi, 2001, p. 13). The storing process was shrouded
16
For more information and legal developments with regard to indigenous people, see the Council of Indigenous
People: http://www.apc.gov.tw/portal/docList.html?CID=74DD1F415708044A
17. 14
in a mystifying cloud from its very inception. Lack of information, or false information, led
to the Tao people presuming that it was in fact a canning factory that was being opened (Fan,
2006, p. 436). It was only after the nuclear waste was dumped, that the Tao people began to
understand the thorny situation they were in.
The perception of deceit was only intensified when several thousands of rusting
nuclear waste containers were found in the late 1980s (Fan, 2006, p. 436). In early 1995 the
government further announced that it planned to expand the storage facility to 130.000,
instead of the full capacity of 100.000 (Chi, 2001, p. 15). With such perceived injustices, the
Tao people and several environmental groups protested the dumping of nuclear waste on
Orchid island 17
. How has this improved the situation of the Tao people? First, this led the
government to monetarily compensate the people of Orchid island, which was broadly spent
on infrastructure and social welfare services (Fan, 2006, p. 436). Despite this, however, other
people resisted monetary compensation as they argue environmental goods and the health of
Tao people are invaluable (Ibid, pp. 436-437). Second, the government promised to ship all
nuclear wastes out of Lanyu by 2002, a promise that Chi (2001) described as “may be
difficult to realise” (p. 16).
History proved Chi right, and by now this prediction can even be considered an
understatement. In order to look for a solution to the lingering nuclear waste problem,
Taipower – Taiwan‟s power company – contacted Chinese and North Korean authorities to
export the waste18
, and they have considered returning the waste to the power plants19
. In
2002, four members from Taiwan‟s legislative Yuan even went so far as to propose to buy (!)
Orchid island as a permanent nuclear waste storage area (Fan, 2006, p. 437). Thus far, two
deadlines to relocate the nuclear waste have passed, making it questionable as to what extent
the coining of „temporal storage‟ is still applicable. In any case, the Tao people‟s land
remains to be the dump site of nuclear waste. A solution is nowhere near to be found, leaving
the Tao people and other residents of the island no more than Taiwan‟s premier‟s apologies20
.
3.2.2 Displacement for developments sake
We have thus seen a primarily sad story when we see the Tao people having to live with
nuclear waste. One of the few beacons of light for the Tao people is, perhaps, that they can
still live on their ancestral grounds. Such a fortunate fate did not seem to be destined for the
Rukai people21
. Already having been resettled from the mountains (Old Haucha) to new
villages (Ila and New Haucha) not more than a few decades ago, the government planned to
build a dam that would flood the new villages as well (Chi, 2001, p. 11). This necessitated a
second relocation of the Rukai people. As Chi (2001) puts it, the villages opposed this plan,
17
As Fan (2009, p. 167) explains, it is reasonable to accept that the reason that the first protesting happened six
years after the nuclear waste dumping, is the absence of democratic values did not allow it earlier.
18
Source: Taipei Times (2003): http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2015/10/24/2003630810,
accessed March 28, 2016.
19
Ibid.
20
„Source: China Post (2016): http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-
news/2016/03/12/460511/Premier-apologizes.htm, accessed March 28, 2016.
21
Rukai people have before been classified as being part of the Paiwan people, but are now recognized as a
separate tribe. Source: http://www.dmtip.gov.tw/Eng/Rukai.htm, accessed March 28, 2016.
18. 15
to say the least; “their painful memories of the socio-economic-cultural consequences are still
fresh: the never-realised government promise of new farmland, the heavy economic burden
of new housing, rapid deterioration of old social fabric and cultural traditions, and increasing
population outflow and outside influences” (p. 11).
Inevitably, this led to protests by the Rukai people. Dressed in their indigenous attire,
they demonstrated the building of the Majia dam project
in 1994 (Chi, 2001, p. 13). At the same time gathering
nationwide media attention, and support from national
environmental organizations and politicians. The
opposition gained momentum. After several months of
demonstrating, the Rukai people won a victory; the
government announced it would temporarily abandon the
dam project (Ibid, pp. 12-13). It thus seems that the
Rukai people have managed to, at least temporarily,
divert another threat to their indigenous lifestyle (see
location of Majia Townshin in figure six). Interesting to
highlight in this regard is perhaps that not only in
Taiwan, but in other countries too, the articulation of
indigeneity and indigenous rights have proven crucial in
opposing (hydro-electric) dams and other projects22
. For
the Rukai people, such successful opposition would have
been unimaginable before Taiwan‟s democratization, and in that sense the indigenous people
seem to have more means to oppose unwanted development projects –often presented as a
„win-win‟ for everyone – than ever before.
Development is, however – like almost everything in life – a continuous process. And
so industrial apparatuses, too, are everything but stationary; new disputes over who has the
right to do what are continuous. Translating this to more specific language; experiences
similar to the Rukai‟s struggle with the Majia dam are likely to occur in the future as well. In
fact, struggles against dam projects by indigenous peoples are again happening at the very
moment of writing. In a situation much similar to the Majia project, Taiwan‟s Water
Resource Agency (WRA) is planning to build another dam in the Chunri township, again on
indigenous soil23
, without any meaningful participation by indigenous people24
. In
cooperation with the Presbyterian church, preparation for strategized opposition started in
2013. In so doing, the Presbyterian church, indigenous people, and other affected groups are
in the relatively privileged position that they can learn from earlier successful resistance, such
22
For example, the Lepcha indigenous people managed to oppose several hydro-electric projects in Dzongu,
Sikkim (India), continuously emphasizing their ancestral bonds with the land. Protests against hydro-electric
projects in neighboring Darjeeling, West Bengal (India) have all been in vain.
23
The Shih-Wen dam is planned on Paiwan indigenous soil.
24
As Ma (2013) explains, “the WRA neither listened nor respected the views of the residents during these
hearings, prompting them to oppose the project even more vehemently”
Figure six: Majia township (top, red) and Chunri
township (bottom, red) in southern Taiwan.
Picture adapted from Wikimedia, March 29, 2016.
19. 16
as the Majia dam opposition25
. Whether or not the Paiwan indigenous peoples and other
involved groups will be able to successfully face this new challenge, remains to be seen.
3.2.3 The criminal indigenous hunter
To diversify the scope of our investigation, we will examine one more case. Whereas the
previous two cases affected the livelihoods of many indigenous peoples, this case affected
only one. And whereas the previous cases moved entire groups to resist against perceived
injustices brought upon them, the focus here was on a single person. This case is about a
Bunun man.
54 year old Tama Talum went hunting in the summer of 2013 to provide food for his
92 year old mother and other families in his community. It seemed to have been a good day
as he short two deer26
. On his way home, however, he was arrested and charged with
violating the „Controlling Guns, Knives and Ammunition Act‟ and the „Wildlife
Conservation Act‟27
. Sharing the game with his mother and other families was not destined
for him. Instead, he faced a charge of three years and six months for violating state law.
Interestingly, this is not the only law that could have been applied. Understanding this issue
from a legal pluralistic perspective – a situation in which two or more legal systems coexist in
the same social field28
– it can well be argued that this case has to be understood from a
Bunun legal perspective. That is very much what Tama Talum did while in court, also with
help from legal advisers, referring to the 2005 Indigenous Peoples Basic Act.
The problem with the 2005 Indigenous Peoples Basic Act, as we have seen earlier, is
that it is pending further action by the Legislative Yuan. And since that had not happened, all
hunting in National Parks remains illegal and one needs to obtain a permit in order to hunt29
.
We begin to see the importance of the legal nitty-gritty of Taiwan‟s indigenous peoples‟
rights. Instead of delving too much into this, the more interesting path may be to look at how
the case progressed. Tama Talum was sentenced to 3.5 year in prison. He did not agree with
this and appealed at the Supreme Court to have the convictions overturned. The Supreme
Court ruled against Tama Talum30
. Having fought his prosecution up to the Supreme Court,
there was little more Tama Talum and sympathizers could do. In the end, he would have to
go to prison for his hunting practices, if the Prosecutor-General did not file an extraordinary
appeal to the Supreme Court asserting that the original judgment in the case was itself
illegal31
. Pending this appeal, Tama Talum remains free. The answer to whether or not he will
have to serve a 3.5 year sentence in prison can thus not yet definitely be given.
25
In strategizing their resistance, the Presybterian Church invited a former Tainan County Agriculture Bureau
chief who was involved in resistance against the Majia dam (Ibid).
26
Source: Taipei Times (2016) : http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2016/01/26/2003638073,
accessed April 5, 2016.
27
Ibid.
28
The concept of legal pluralism was first introduced by Sally Engle Merry in 1988
29
Information retrieved from Savage Minds: http://savageminds.org/2015/12/14/hunting-as-an-indigenous-
right-on-taiwan-a-call-to-action/, April 5, 2016.
30
Information retrieved from a Taipei Times article on Tama Talum‟s prosecution:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2016/01/26/2003638073, April 5, 2016.
31
Video and article on Prosecutor-General‟s appeal [In Chinese] at: http://titv.ipcf.org.tw/news-17577
20. 17
It truly seems that Tama Talum has fallen victim to the disparities between two
competing social systems; that of the Bunun and the Taiwanese government. But where does
this leave us? What can we conclude from Tama Talum‟s case, Orchid Island‟s nuclear
waste, and diverted displacement for developments sake? All these different instances
indicate nothing but a continuous struggle for the rights of indigenous peoples. And even
though we have addressed only a few instances here, there is many more in all sorts of fields.
One can think of intellectual property rights (Lin, 2007), environmental rights (Chen, 2004),
land grabbing (Chi, 2001; Kuan, 2010), or labor exploitation (Lee & Williams, 2014, p. 114).
Taiwan‟s recent democratization has certainly helped to improve the legal and other means
with which the indigenous people can defend themselves. They do, however, remain in an
unfavorable position as opposed to other inhabitants of Taiwan – let alone as opposed to
multi-national companies or the state. It seems thus that the past is indeed not dead. In fact,
it‟s not even past.
4. The politics of indigeneity
“Indigenous peoples have been engaged in a political struggle to defend themselves and their
resources against encroaching politically centralized societies for at least the past six
thousand years” – John. H. Bodley (2008, p.1)
Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that almost all of this earth is under control of a
government. Some democratic, some totalitarian, others somewhere in between; virtually all
people walking the face of this earth are subject to state power from these governments. After
all, being a citizen of a particular country inherently means one is to abide by its laws and
principles. The citation by Bodley (2008) gives away that indigenous people have an
ambivalent relation with these “encroaching politically centralized societies” – something
that, given the topic we have discussed in the previous section, presumably comes as
everything but a surprise. However, this also implies that it is near impossible for indigenous
peoples to avert becoming subject to state power, something we have clearly seen in sections
2.2 and 3. The question that remains, then, is how indigenous peoples have replied to the
recent democratic changes. In other words, we will now look at the story beyond the original
state recognition of different tribes. How is it that some tribes are officially recognized, while
others are not? What are the inter-tribe dynamics that are taking place behind the recognized
or unrecognized statuses? What role does the Council of Indigenous Peoples play in this? Let
us start with looking at the tribal politics of indigeneity, as this lays at the heart of the
political struggle.
4.1 Tribal political dynamics
Before any official state articulation can take place, there must first be a recognition of the
state. How else, if one does not want to be a subject of the state, can one be „officially
recognized‟ by the state? Different tribes have addressed this issue in different ways. The
Bunun tribe, for example, are reluctant to confront the state directly by means of protest.
Instead, they have attempted to establish a long-term relationship with the government and
officials via a kinship idiom, what Yang (2005) explains to have created a “dialectical
21. 18
integration between the Bunun and the state” (p. 507)32
. Thus, through their compliance with
the state, they attempt to establish a relationship with the government to secure their interests.
Other indigenous groups have a different relation to the state. Being at the different end of the
spectrum, some indigenous groups are known for and proud of their anti-state resistance
(Simon, 2010, p. 728). However, if an indigenous tribe is not officially recognized by the
state, because they do not wish to be, does that make them less „real‟? Less authentic, or
more? Can we still appreciate their knowledge, culture, and all the rest of it? In the eyes of
the state, after all, they do not exist as indigenous people, but as „normal subjects‟. They can
thus also not appeal to any legislation particularly passed to protect or revive indigenous
cultures. For the purpose of continuing our argument, we will leave this topic aside for now,
but it is important to keep in the back of our minds when discussing indigenous issues.
Paradoxically, the „anti-state‟ indigenous tribes Simon (2010) mentions are officially
recognized by the state. It are two tribes we have encountered earlier in this article; the
Seediq and Taroko. One may rightfully wonder how this is possible. The answer is simple as
it is straightforward: different people have different opinions, and Taiwan‟s indigenous tribes
are no exception to this. The question, thus, how it is possible that anti-state tribes are
officially recognized by the state, can be answered by inter-tribal dynamics. The movement
to officially recognize the Seediq and Taroko as a separate tribe, was led by a small group of
local elites (Simon, 2010, p. 728). It was even difficult to convince households to change
their official registration from Atayal to the new categories, as it was suspected that new
categories were tools of political manipulations to increase the power of these local political
actors (Ibid, p. 728).
Similar inter-tribal dynamics have taken place during the Tao‟s resistance against
nuclear waste on their island. In 2000, Tao elites declared the establishment of the Orchid
Island Tao Tribe Aboriginal Autonomous Committee‟ and released the „Declaration of
Autonomy for Orchid Island‟ to pursue political, economic, socio-cultural and territorial-
environmental autonomous rights (Fan, 2006, p. 439). Other Tao‟s opposed such autonomy,
as the tribe relied on financial support from outside – which thus would be affected by
economic autonomy (Ibid, p. 439). In other words, these people doubted the tribal autonomy
would bring the Tao people a better life.
But let us return for a moment to our previous topic; official recognition of indigenous
peoples. Let us assume there is an indigenous tribe who – be it in the interest of a small elite,
or of the tribe as a whole – wishes to become officially recognized by the state. Inter-tribal
politics of indigenous articulation is thus a phase which is in the past. However, this is by no
means the end of the politics of official indigenous recognition. The next step is to appeal for
official recognition at the Center of Indigenous Peoples (CIP), after which Taiwan‟s
Legislative Yuan also needs to approve the proposal. A lengthy way to go indeed. To
illustrate; the 15th
and 16th
recognized tribes (Hlaalua and Kanakanavu) applied to the CIP to
be recognized as a separate tribe from the Tsou in 2011 and 2012, respectively. The CIP,
32
„Bunun‟ in this context refers to the Bunun indigenous peoples from the Vulvul and Ququaz area studied by
Yang(2005).
22. 19
then, commissioned a team of university researchers to examine the righteousness of the
appeal; the team concluded the tribes met the requirements33
. The conclusions were sent to
the CIP, which proposed the appeal to the Legislative Yuan. The legislative Yuan, in turn,
endorsed the appeal, and so Taiwan‟s 15th
and 16th
tribe now officially exist34
.
Returning to our imaginative tribe, all these hurdles have yet to be taken. It is very
possible that a proposal to be officially recognized does not pass the CIP. After all, the same
budget for the Council of Indigenous Peoples would have to be shared with a larger group.
This makes it economically unattractive for the CIP to recognize more tribes, and they have
been accused for having this economic motive when examining unrecognized tribes‟ requests
(Phillion et al., 2012, pp. 235-236). This accusation has even gone so far that the United
Nations accepted requests to launch an investigation into the issue (Ibid, p. 236). Assuming
our imaginative tribe has managed to overcome this hurdle, all that is left to do is hoping the
Legislative Yuan‟s political capital is in favor of our tribes request.
From these experiences it becomes clear that Taiwan‟s indigenous tribes have to
overcome a number of political hurdles before being officially recognized. Above all, we
have to understand there are different opinions within an indigenous group, and thus we need
to be careful of uniformizing indigenous communities. Even though it has been explained that
one has to be careful in understanding the nuances of indigenous communities, and their
different socio-political involvement and sometimes (violently) intermingled historical
development, it also has to be emphasized that it is hard to speak of „an indigenous group‟,
acting as a single organism, carrying forward a uniformly agreed upon opinion. Just like a
nation consist of many individuals with different opinions, so does an indigenous tribe. In
truly trying to obtain a deeper understanding of the phenomena, one has to go beyond the
romanticized representation of an indigenous tribe acting as a collective uniform group.
Instead, it has to be understood that in indigenous tribes, too, different histories and social
relations exist, also with regard to economics, politics, development, articulation, etcetera.
5. Conclusion
Let us briefly recapitulate. We have seen the long history of the indigenous peoples: the
mystifying cloud in which their history is covered, having motivated brilliant researchers to
promulgate different theories, yet without any conclusive answer. We have seen the impact of
different colonizers, the importance of the mountainous terrain for the survival of indigenous
peoples and cultures, and the processes through which indigenous peoples have been
assimilated by the colonizers, or arguably also how the colonizers have acculturated to the
indigenous practices. We then looked at the legal changes and affirmative action policies, and
how indigenous peoples continue to struggle against the perceived injustices. We ended our
investigation with the politics of indigeneity, where we saw how the process of official
recognition involves more than the will of the indigenous people to become officially
33
Information on official recognition Hlaalua and kanakanavu retrieved from the Executive Yuan:
http://www.ey.gov.tw/en/Link_Content.aspx?n=E8596CCA0ACD122A&s=34FCA57AFAAB60A1, April 5th
,
2016.
34
Ibid.
23. 20
recognized. We also saw that it is, in fact, even troublesome to speak of the will of „the
indigenous people‟, as there are myriad opinions within a single tribe. But where does this
leave us? What can we conclude from what we have read?
What we have done in this article, is learning about the indigenous peoples. More
important, perhaps, is to try to move beyond this. Instead, we can try to understand what we
can learn from them. This is no distant prospect. One can think of indigenous patterns that
have been immensely popular in fashion. Then, in India, cooperation is sought with
indigenous people to carry out a scientific analysis of bird conservation. More recently, eco-
tourism has become popular, with the indigenous peoples knowledge of their homeland being
irreplaceable.
Looking back at the road traveled, we see that in the past few decades the legal
position of indigenous people substantially improved. This is, however, by no means the end
of the road, as we have also seen they continue to face many issues. In the days to come, too,
there will be conflict, hassle, and all the rest of it. In this, our investigation shows the
paramount importance of legal security for the rights of indigenous people. As we have seen,
there have indeed been wins and losses on the side of indigenous peoples. It is by no means
intended to suggest that indigenous peoples should have unquestionably won all the cases,
but from their history one sees the importance of legal safeguards against unwanted ventures
by either the state or market apparatus. For Taiwan‟s indigenous peoples it is crucial to
understand how legal changes will develop, and how it will affect their lives. How the future
will unfold, remains to be seen. Perhaps the revival of indigeneity in Taiwan proves to be
successful. Perhaps all that is left of Taiwan‟s indigeneity can be encapsulated in a few
museums, or possibly a few articles like this one. But let us not to forget, that it is our actions
that shape the future.
24. 21
6. Literature
Alliance of Taiwan Aborigines (1993). Report of Alliance of Taiwan Aborigines presentation
to the United Nations working group on indigenous populations. Retrieved from
http://www.taiwanfirstnations.org//UNReport.htm, March 29, 2016.
Bellwood, P. (1984). A Hypothesis for Austronesian Origins. Asian Perspectives, 16 (1), 107-
117
Blundell, D. (2005). Chapter 2 – Taiwan’s Indigenous Peoples [Book Chapter].
Blust, R. (1996). Beyond the Austronesian Homeland: The Austric Hypothesis and Its
Implications for Archeology. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 86
(5), 117-158.
Bodley, J. H. (2008). Victims of Progress, 5th
edition. Lanham, MD: Rowmann and
Littlefield.
Brown, M. J. (2004). Is Taiwan Chinese? The Impact of Culture, Power, and Migration on
Changing Identities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chang, S. (2012). Evaluation of Taiwan‟s aboriginal development before Ching Dynasty.
Applied Economics, 44 (34), 4409-4419.
Chen, S. (2009). How Han are Taiwanese Han? Genetic inference of plains indigenous
ancestry among Taiwanese Han and its implications for Taiwan identity [Doctoral
Dissertation].
Cheng, S. Y., & Jacob, W. J. (2008). American Indian and Taiwan Aboriginal Education:
Indigenous Identity and Career Aspirations. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9 (3),
233-247.
Chi, C. (2001). Capitalist Expansion and Indigenous Land Rights: Emerging Environmental
Justice Issues in Taiwan. The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 2, (2), 135-153.
Ching, L. T. S. (2000). Savage Construction and Civility Making: Japanese Colonialism and
Taiwanese Aboriginal Representation. Positions: East Asia cultures critique, 8 (3),
795-818.
Crook, S. (2014). Taiwan: The Bradt Travel Guide. Guilford: Globe Pequot Press.
Deters, P., Gao, X., Vitanova, G., & Miller, E. R. (2014). Theorizing and Analyzing Agency
in Second Language Learning: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Diamond, J. M. (2000). Taiwan‟s gift to the world. Nature, 403 (6771), 709-710.
Fan, M. F. (2006). Nuclear waste facilities on Tribal Land: The Yami‟s struggles for
environmental justice. Local Environment, 11 (4), 433-444.
25. 22
Fan, M. F. (2009). Public perceptions and the nuclear waste repository on Orchid Island,
Taiwan. Public Understand, 18, 167-176.
Harrison, H. (2003). Clothing and Power on the Periphery of Empire: The Costumes of the
Indigenous People of Taiwan. Positions: East Asia culture critiques, 11 (2), 331-360.
Heé, N. (2014). Taiwan under Japanese Rule. Showpiece of a Modern Colony?
Historiographical Tendencies in Narrating Colonialism. History Compass, 1-11.
Ko, A. M. S., Chen, C. Y., Fu, Q., Delfin, F., Li, M., Chiu, H. L., ... & Ko, Y. C. (2014).
Early Austronesians: into and out of Taiwan. The American Journal of Human
Genetics, 94(3), 426-436.
Kuan, D. (2010). Transitional Justice and Indigenous Land Rights: The Experience of
Indigenous Peoples‟ Struggle in Taiwan. Working Paper for Bilateral Conference for
Justice and Injustice Problems in Transitional Societies.
Lee, S., & Williams, J. F. (2014). Taiwan’s Struggle: Voices of the Taiwanese. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Li, H., Wen, B., Chen, S. J. Su., B., Pramoonjago, P., Liu, Y., … Li, J. (2008). Paternal
genetic affinity between western Austronesians and Daic populations. BMC
Evolutionary Biology, 8 (1), 146-157.
Lin, K. (2007). Using Intellectual Property Rights to Protect Indigenous Cultures: Critique on
the Recent Development in Taiwan. Journal of Archeology and Anthropology, 67, pp.
185-220.
Lin, M., Chu, C. C., Lee, H. L., Chang, S. L. Ohashi, J., Tokunaga, K., . . . Juji, T.
(2000). Heterogeneity of Taiwan‟s indigenous population: possible relation to
prehistoric Mongoloid dispersals. Tissue Antigens, 55, 1-9.
Ma, L. (2013). Indigenous villages and churches discuss strategies to protect their villages
from harmful dam projects. Retrieved from:
http://english.pct.org.tw/enNews_tcn.aspx?strBlockID=B00177&strContentID=C201
3020600011&strDesc=&strSiteID=&strPub=&strCTID=&strASP=enNews_tcn,
March 28, 2016.
Mazas, A. S., Blench, R., Ross, M. D., Peiros, I. Lin, M. (2008). Past Human Migrations in
East Asia: Matching Archeology, Linguistics and Genetics. London: Routledge.
Phillion, J., Hue, M. T., Wang, Y. (2011). Minority Students in East Asia: Government
Policies, School Practices and Teacher Responses. London: Routledge.
Simon, S. (2010). Negotiating power: Elections and the constitution of indigenous Taiwan.
American Ethnologist, 37 (4), 726-740.
26. 23
Simon, S. (2015). Real People, Real Dogs, and Pigs for the Ancestors: The Moral Universe of
“Domestication” in Indigenous Taiwan. American Anthropologist, 117 (4), 693-709.
Takao Club (2016). Aftermath. Retrieved from
http://www.takaoclub.com/monaludao/aftermath.htm, March 16, 2016.
Teng, E. (2006). Taiwan’s imagined geography: Chinese Colonial Travel Writing and
Pictures, 1683-1895. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Yang, S. Y. (2005). Imagining the state: An ethnographic study. Ethnography, 6 (4), 487-
516.
Zhao, S. (2013). Across the Taiwan Strait: Mainland China, Taiwan and the 1995-1996
Crisis. New York: Routledge.
