WILD AT HEART LEGAL DEFENSE ASSOCIATION

Indigenous Taiwan A Short Introduction

Joas Platteeuw

2016

i

Cover photo: Painting in Ketagalan Culture Center, Taipei, February 2016.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.