Modern Taiwan History. Stay True. (Anthropology Notes 1-126)
 |
Near Kotepokouri meaning Volcanic Waters Witch's Cauldron (Easter Islanders interpretation) Easter Island  Brugmansia suaveolens (大花曼陀羅) Introduced from South America to Taiwan in
1910. Machu Picchu, Peru My interest is always and has been about exploring facts and how these peoples and histories shaped modern Taiwan History into what we are today. No more than that. Over the last few months I posted some 40 notes on Facebook based on my observations while 'on the move' (literally). Posting there was purely for convenience - to transfer to blogpost at a later opportunity when I am settled. I set it up so I can close them at one click - which I did and they are now closed. They will be transferred to THIS and THIS blogpost in due course, although it may take me sometime to complete. For now, a reader's comments (points duly taken) on a latest note prompted me to get this one done first to 'clear the air'. The comments were made to THIS blogpost concerning first the Title and second about cultural vs genetic identity. While my point of the post was about some (I personally think) interesting discoveries by scientists/anthropologists that 'although Tsou and Bunun are cultural and linguistic close today, their genetic breakdown are surprisingly different.' I therefore made the note referring to the facts that at least 'two Fujian boys from China' had risen to become legendary indigenous leaders. And perhaps that could be a factor to consider explaining these genetic differences. No more than that and nothing about questioning 'cultural identity' which is a matter of individual choice and freedom. And a personal decision to be respected. My interest remains and always has been about exploring facts and how these peoples and histories changed and shaped Taiwan History. EXAMPLE ONE - First - 'Full-blooded' is not 'my' phrase - Two veteran and accomplished English writers used it and that's where I saw it. These quotes can be located online. It's not mine. Perhaps my bad is for following their description thinking it would have been 'safe' coming from two respected authors (internationally) - lesson learned! Next time I would just copy and paste the Chinese originals for none-Chinese readers to make their own interpretations! Incredible Taiwan History - While both 'Fujian - Chinese' boys risen to become indigenous leaders are well-documented in Chinese - Puyuma Matreli 馬智禮 history had never been mentioned in English until Jonathan Clements' Rebel Island. Saisiyat akuwai 日阿拐 history remained un-reported in English. Totally agree - Matreli... born in Fujian to Han Chinese parents, ..... a tribal leader whose life was a microcosm of modern Taiwanese history. (Jonathan Clements Rebel Island) My point is - Can you tell Puyuma history without mentioning Matreli? No, you can't. Can you tell Matreli history without mentioning his powerful position between indigenous and Japanese societies? No, you can't. Same goes with akuwai 日阿拐 (Saisiyat). No - you can't. is why writing about Saisiyat and Puyuma modern indigenous histories can not be complete and true without mentioning their 'Fujian-Chinese' background and describing how they rose to their powerful position which consequently changed and shaped Taiwan History for good. EXAMPLE TWO  Indigenous terms couldn't have existed in indigenous culture BEFORE they were introduced to Taiwan. While I have no issue and nothing to disagree with in the case of Formosan languages including a mosaic of loanwords. That's 'contact' languages and have been existing in Taiwan for centuries. People do what they have to do based on what they have. I do have an issue with loanwords being promoted as PAN (pro-Austronesian) based on underanalysed data and outdated information. Latest example inspired by Machu Picchu trip - Brugmansia suaveolens (大花曼陀羅) which I saw on numerous occasions in Mexico, Peru and Chile was introduced to Taiwan by Japanese in 1910. Paiwan's using it as 'Tjimur' (related to sacred spirit, ritual and ceremony), therefore, couldn't have existed in Paiwan culture and language BEFORE 1910. Cases like these are plenty - all backed up with linguistic supports and evidences. Continuing ignoring and neglecting these historical facts in claiming 'indigenous' 'proto' or building 'proto' is deceiving and misleading. Note - Brugmansia suaveolens (大花曼陀羅) I first saw in Taiwan in Smangus (God's tribe in Atayal language). Smangus is borrowed from Sauvage (French. territoire de Sauvage) My interest is never about questioning indigenous language revitalization. Which is the only way to preserve indigenous culture and I see how that works in Easter island - in connection with Maori language revitalization. I do have ideas how these language strategies work and consequently the importance of revitalization. Again - my interest is always about exploring facts. And how colonial (in this case) impacts and influences shaped (and changed) Taiwan history and made us what we are today. Because - what is the point of repeating, retelling, and promoting outdated history? It maybe worth doing - but it's not worth doing well. Anthropology Observation IV (Notes 112-122) HERE Anthropology Observation III (Notes 83-111) HERE Anthropology Observation II (Notes 52-82) HERE Anthropology Observation I (Notes 1-51) HERE |
Comments
Post a Comment