Rudolph Aror 2016 Sakizaya (002)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Southern Denmark The Quest for Ethnic Reclassification in Multiculturalist Taiwan The Case of the Sakizaya Rudolph, Michael Published in: Archiv Orientalni Publication date: 2016 Document version: Proof Citation for pulished version (APA): Rudolph, M. (2016). The Quest for Ethnic Reclassification in Multiculturalist Taiwan: The Case of the Sakizaya. Archiv Orientalni, 84(2), 413-443. https://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/ao.84.2.08rud/details Go to publication entry in University of Southern Denmark's Research Portal Terms of use This work is brought to you by the University of Southern Denmark. Unless otherwise specified it has been shared according to the terms for self-archiving. If no other license is stated, these terms apply: • You may download this work for personal use only. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying this open access version If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details and we will investigate your claim. Please direct all enquiries to [email protected] Download date: 26. Sep. 2021 ARCHIV ORIENTÁLNÍ 84, 2016 • 413 The Quest for Ethnic Reclassification in Multiculturalist Taiwan: The Case of the Sakizaya Michael Rudolph INTRODUCTION1 Following the decrease in legitimacy that Taiwan’s KMT government suffered after Taiwan’s withdrawal from the UN in 1979, a growing number of disadvantaged groups (ruoshi zuqun 弱势族群) began to voice their claim for the recognition of their ethnic, cultural, and political rights. Emerging in 1984 as an offshoot of an organization connected to Taiwan’s political opposition (Dangwai (黨外),2 the pan-ethnic movement of Taiwan’s aborigines (Yuanzhumin 原住民)3 was one of the first of these movements. Apart from dealing with pressing social issues such as the exploitation of aboriginal workers, the leaders of the movement had three main concerns, i.e., the legal anchoring of aboriginal rights in the ROC’s constitution, the reclamation of aboriginal land, and the rectification of ethnic names (zhengming 正名). Perceiving name rectification as an instrument for destigmatization and as a means of promoting and protecting their distinct ethnic and cultural identities, these young aboriginal elites4 fought in particular 1 Preliminary versions of this paper were presented at the 9th Annual Conference of the European Association for Taiwan Studies in Soenderborg, Denmark, 18–20 June 2012, and at the Seminary “Transforming Taiwan: Social, political and cultural aspects” at the Taiwan Studies Center, Vienna University, 15–16 May 2013. 2 In 1986, the Dangwai became the Democratic Progress Party (DPP). From 1986 until 2000, the DPP was Taiwan’s main political opposition party, and from 2000–2008 the ruling party. In opposition from 2008–2016, the DPP regained the presidency and a majority of the Legislative Yuan in the January 2016 elections. 3 After the official recognition of Taiwan’s indigenous peoples’ self-chosen pan-ethnic name in 1994, Taiwan had used the term Yuanzhumin (= original inhabitants or “aborigines” in English translation) for its indigenous population. Since the beginning of the new millennium, however, aboriginal institutions and organizations in Taiwan have begun to use the term “indigenous” in their English language translations in order to ally themselves with other groups around the world under the rubric provided by the UN. Kerim Friedman, “The Hegemony of the Local.” In this publication, I therefore use “aboriginal” and “indigenous” synonymously. Because Taiwan’s aborigines all belong to the Austronesian language family (nandao yuxi 南島語系), they are also frequently referred to as “Taiwan’s Austronesians.” Their sixteen different officially recognized peoples have different socio-cultural systems and speak mutually unintelligible languages. 4 In 1987, Taiwan’s anthropologist Xie Shizhong distinguished three kinds of aboriginal elite (yuanzhumin jingying 原住民菁英): the aboriginal “traditional elite,” such as chiefs and shamans; the KMT regime loyal aboriginal “political elite,” who had not yet been educated in the modern ArOr – Issue 84.2 ISSN 0044-8699 © 2016 Oriental Institute (CAS), Prague 414 • MICHAEL RUDOLPH for the recognition of the self-chosen pan-ethnic name “Yuanzhumin” (原住民 = aborigines) instead of the official name “mountain compatriots” (shandi tongbao 山地同胞) and the commonly used term “mountain people” (shandiren 山地人). In the same vein, they demanded the recognition of individual aboriginal names, and the recognition of the ethnic names of the respective ethnic groups.5 As a consequence of Taiwan’s democratic and multiculturalist development in the 1990s,6 many demands of the island’s indigenous population were able to be realized by the end of the old millennium. Parcels of land that had originally been designated as state land were redefined as aboriginal land, the pan-ethnic name Yuanzhumin was recognized in 1994 and, after 1995, it was possible to use individual aboriginal names on identity cards, etc.7 After the establishment of the Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP) in 1996, the constitutionalization of the Yuanzhumin status was further enhanced, and aborigines became fully recognized and well-respected members of Taiwan’s society, with strong political representation.8 After many decades of stagnating population growth, aboriginal society now began to prosper again in terms of numbers.9 education system and who only partially coincided with the traditional elite; and the aboriginal “intellectual elite” of students and graduates of universities, colleges and theological institutions. While some of these elites managed to step into the positions of the older KMT-loyal elite, others became organized in the pan-ethnic aboriginal movement and formed the so-called “resistant elite.” Xie Shizhong, Rentong de wuming; idem, “Pianli qunzhong de jingying.” From the early 1990s, Xie’s latter distinction became obsolete, as politically active members from the intellectual aboriginal elite were now no longer necessarily linked to the KMT, but were also connected to the Democratic Progress Party (DPP) and other parties. Other members of today’s aboriginal intellectual elite are academics, schoolteachers, cultural workers, as well as church intellectuals. In particular, members from the aboriginal church elite – usually from the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan (PCT), which has schools, colleges, and hospitals in Taiwan – are still often active against established aboriginal politicians. Apart from aboriginal intellectual elites, a traditional aboriginal elite still exists, although today this category is beginning to overlap with the aboriginal intellectual elite. 5 Chiu and Chiang, “From the Politics of Identity to an Alternative Cultural Politics.” 6 Jens Damm, “The Multiculturalization of Taiwan.” 7 For a thorough discussion of the development of Taiwan’s aboriginal movement and its demands, see Kun-hui Ku, “Rights to Recognition,” as well as Michael Rudolph, “The Quest for Difference vs the Wish to Assimilate.” 8 In Taiwan’s parliament, the Legislative Yuan, which has 113 members in total, Aborigines, who only make up 2.3% of Taiwan’s population, are currently represented by six members, three each for highland (or mountain) and lowland aborigines. 9 Yen Liang Chiu points to the low growth rate (1%) of Taiwan’s indigenous population between 1964 and 1988. In the years until 1956, the natural rate of increase had still been more than 3%. According to Chiu, the main reason for the low growth rate thereafter was that “aboriginal girls had been purchased by Han military personnel” for marriage. Since these women were no longer registered as aborigines in Taiwan’s patrilineal society, they were no longer visible. Chiu Liang, “From the Politics of Identity to an Alternative Cultural Politics,” 85. The Quest for Ethnic Reclassification in Multiculturalist Taiwan: The Case of the Sakizaya • 415 This paper seeks to trace some of the factors that have led to a large-scale ethnic resurgence in Taiwan since the new millennium. Aboriginal society has not only considerably increased in population during this time, but also in the number of ethnic groups. Two trends seem to be of particular interest in this respect, i.e., the trend to reclassify from non-indigenous to indigenous, and also the trend to reclassify from one indigenous group to a different indigenous group. After describing these two trends, I will argue that a specific national and international environment was supportive of a large-scale ethnic resurgence in Taiwan during the first decade of the new millennium. Another major factor, however, was the elitist character of the movements for ethnic reclassification. I will illuminate this latter point by taking a closer look at the reclassification movement of the Sakizaya (Chinese: Saqilaiya 撒奇萊雅), a group that succeeded in becoming officially recognized as being different from the Amis aborigines in 2007. The leading elites knew very well how to manipulate cultural and ethnic features in a way that fit the national requirements and fulfilled the national and international criteria of an ethnic group or an indigenous people, such as historical continuity, a unique language and their own customs and culture.10 However, despite the success of the elites, it was not possible to convince most of the common people with regard to the new ethnic constructions and they decided to stay Amis. From an anthropological