Taiwan Aborigine Distinctiveness

          In “Rights to Recognition: Minority/Indigenous Politics in the Emerging Taiwanese Nationalism,” Ku focusses on the aboriginal rights movement in Taiwan, which emerged as a part of a larger opposition movement in the early 1980s (2005: 99). In 1984, the Alliance of Taiwan Aborigines (ATA) was established, marking the official launch of the Taiwanese aboriginal rights movement (Ku 2005: 102). The ATA chose the term “aborigines” very specifically because it implied being the first inhabitants of Taiwan (Ku 2005: 103). The term thus indicated that the “aborigines” were the, as Ku puts it, “the original master of Taiwan” (2005: 103). This choice in term gave the ATA movement a strong voice throughout their quest for rights and recognition in Taiwan (Ku 2005: 103). What was of great interest in this article was the view that pro-independence advocates in the DDP held. They claimed that aborigines are the most qualified group to declare independence, as they have always been in Taiwan so the issue of unification is non-existent for them (Ku 2005: 106). To me, this emphasizes the unique position Taiwan has in relation to China and the role that aborigines play in that relationship. The advocacy of pro-independence members of the DDP may not have the rights and recognition at the forefront of their goals, but the power they believe held by the aborigines in this situation seems extremely unique compared to other indigenous groups around the world (or at least the ones that I have studied up to this point). So although activists on behalf of Taiwan aborigines use international examples and laws to demand their government grant indigenous peoples basic human rights and status as distinct groups (Ku 2005: 100), their case of their relationship to the land and what power that could give them could be used as an example and stepping stone for other indigenous groups around the world. 

“Imagining the State: An Ethnographic Study,” by Yang, explores the Bunun, “an Austronesian-speaking aboriginal minority group of central Taiwan” and how they construct the state (2005: 489). The Bunun have constructed their view of the state based on their culture and history of interaction with the colonial state; this has resulted in their view of the state as a provider (Yang 2005: 491). The Bunun are often praised by government officials as cooperative, but also negatively regarded as blind followers (Yang 2005: 490). The Bunun prefer to “sit down and talk things over nicely” with government officials or make requests in person; this all has to do with their construction of the state as integrated with social life and constructed through interaction (Yang 2005: 494). 

So it seems the Bunun, an aborigine group in Taiwan, have very different expectations of the state than those of the ATA. As long as the Bunun can communicate in a civil manner and their needs are met, they are satisfied. However, the ATA has taken a more contemporary approach using international standards and examples when it comes to meeting their needs, rights and appropriate recognition from the government of Taiwan. These contrasts emphasize that not all aborigine groups in Taiwan, or any country for that matter, are the same and that their intra-cultural distinctiveness deserves recognition in addition to their collective rights. 

Ku, Kun-hui. 2005. “Rights to Recognition: Minority/Indigenous Politics in the Emerging Taiwanese Nationalism.” Social         Analysis 49 (2): 99-121. 

Yang, Shu-Yuan. 2005. “Imagining the State: An Ethnographic Study.” Ethnography 6 (4): 487-516.