Now, it has been three decades since the first initiation of indigenous movement.
From urban to rural communities, from grass roots to government,
we have seen separation and diversion of power and gathering and separation of people
and they all present self-reflection of indigenous culture
and the time for indigenous peoples to fight for ethnic justice.
I. Enlightenment and Emergence of Pan-indigenous Movement
Taiwan’s first contemporary indigenous movement started in the 1960s due to self-consciousness of indigenous elite during the White Terror. Losing Watan of Atayal as well as Uyongu Yatauyungana and Yapasuyongʉ Yulunana from Tsou attempted to organize the indigenous self-defense force in order to build “the autonomy of highland people” and were prosecuted. Under the shadow of White Terror, the indigenous self-consciousness movement declined. It was until 1983 when the publication of Gau Shan Qing (高山青) by students of National Taiwan University(NTU), indigenous movements regained its momentum and re-advocated the indigenous rights. It has been over three decades since the first publication of Gau Shan Qing and as one of its publication members, it is time to retrace the path and look forward to the future.
The emergence of indigenous social movement was linked to Taiwan’s overall political and economic structure. Hence, we need to discuss the indigenous movements in Taiwan’s historical context. Hsieh thought there are two types of factors, internal and external, that help the formation of indigenous movements. External factors include (1) traditional-the inherited name of “barbarians(番),” “Takasasozoku,” or the “highland people;” (2)policy- the ideological type of indigenous administration while internal factors include(1) historical- collective historical experience ;(2) cultural-similar cultural background;(3) scenario- ethnic crisis; and(4)new thoughts of the intellectual(1987: 66-76). These external and internal factors, however, do not statically dominate the indigenous society and they interact and influence each other in a dynamic process. Therefore, it is difficult to determine external and internal factors. Generally, Hung argued the enlightenment of the indigenous society needs to be understood from structure limits shaped by long-term social issues of indigenous peoples. He suggested social issues often present structural factors of social movement and at the same time, they model the path of social movement (Hung, 2001).
Hung divided indigenous movements into six phases including (1) getting rid of Wu Fong myth; (2) no nuclear waste dump; (3) returning my land; (4) name rectification and constitutional clause movement; (5) anti Makazayazaya Reservoir; and (6) against Asia Cement Corporation. Hung thought “anti Makazayazaya Reservoir” serves as an important model for indigenous movements that successfully transform “urban indigenous movement” into “community movement.” Later, Wang (2003) classified the development of indigenous movements into five stages: (1) initiation and connection: encountering of indigenous students and non-KMT writers; (2) construction of organization and movement theories: self-consciousness and enlightenment; (3) waging wars: strategies and paths as well as systematical responses; (4) systemization; (5) breaking and collapsing; and (6) expansion and continuation. Wang contended that the beginning of indigenous movement development mostly starts from self-enlightenment of indigenous students and then organizations are set up to form alliance with contemporary social movements. But due to the difference in path, “urban indigenous movements” and “community-centered programs” are developed.
Iban Nokan of Atayal was the Editor-in-Chief of the founding issue of Gau Shan Qing while for the second and third issues, they were Icyang Parod of Amis and Chung Cheng-Liang of Truku respectively. I joined the editing works for the Magazine in the middle term of Gau Shan Qing and served as the Editor-in-Chief for Issue 4 to 6. With efforts of NTU students, Gau Shan Qing was published issue after issue with different themes of each issue to care for different social issues of indigenous peoples. In 1984, the Taiwan Indigenous Rights Promotion Association was established to promote indigenous movement works in the form of organization including publication of its newsletter. We, the Editors-in-Chief gradually shifted our focus to the Association. In addition to the editing affairs of the newsletter, The Indigenous(原住民), we also took the main leading posts in the Association including President (Icyang) and executive commissioners (Iban Nokan, Chung Cheng-Liang, Tiaban Sasala). I believed this is an important shift of indigenous movements from speech advocating phase on campus to the society with the form of organization.
Kimbo Hu of Paiwan (1984-1987), Icyang Parod of Pangcah (1987-1991), Lavakaw Rakerak of Rukai (1991-9113), Panu Kapamumu of Thao (1993-1994), Yogan Nafu (尤幹．納甫) of Atayal (1994-) served as the President from the 1st to 5th term of “Association for the Promotion of the Indigenous Rights” over ten years. During their terms, they initiated “Appeals of the Indigenous Fishermen to Executive Yuan” “the Name Rectification Movement,” “Getting Rid of Wu Fong Myth,” and “Protest against Excavation of Ancestral Cemetery of Bunun People in Tungpu,” “Commemoration of the Wushe Incident,” and “the Return Our Land Movement” brought profound impacts to Taiwan. In particular, three movements of land return involved alliances with groups such as “the Services Development Commission of the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan,” “Taiwan Indigenous Peoples Development Association,” “Dai Yuan Tung Zhou Development Research Club,” “Indigenous Human Rights and Social Care Group of the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan,” “Return Our Land Promotion Association,” and “Promotion Association of Return Our Land of Taiwan Indigenous Peoples in Hsinchu” that expanded the base of indigenous movements as well as enable more in-depth and diverse discussion on indigenous issues. But after “the 3rd Return Our Land Movement,” following other social movements, the Association became separated and declined due to discrepancy of theories, strategies, and means.
II. From Urban to community: Transition of Indigenous Movement Path
After 1992, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) began inviting leaders of indigenous movements to take public post jobs and that resulted the shift of publication from social movements to public elections. Operations of political system began. The result of participation of social movement advocates often proved to be a failure. Advocates of indigenous movements knew they only have limited manpower and financial resources, yet they still decided to run for elections. This may tie to the mainstream DDP parliament path. According to Kimbo Hu who ran for the 1986 Provincial Councilmen Election, “Running for elections is the most direct way to participate in social movements;” he thought the political appeals to convey the purpose and objectives of the Taiwan Indigenous Rights Promotion Association are the most direct and quickest way to promote indigenous movements. Other advocates of indigenous movements echoed him and believed running for elections can at least convey philosophies, insert influences on important national decision-making, learn to become a political leader for indigenous affairs, and realize appeals of indigenous movements in the parliament (Haisulms, 2007: 264-266).
The authoritarian ruling during that time strictly controlled the indigenous society, and the movement path encountered bottlenecks. Although the elite of indigenous movements emphasized the importance for gaining the indigenous rights through running for elections but most of them in the first participation in running elections including legislators, provincial councilmen, city and county councilmen, village leaders and village representatives failed. Few who were elected were people with experiences in running for elections or strong support of family power and they were not elected because of gaining recognition by indigenous peoples for appeals of indigenous movements.
In 1994, Icyang Parod openly reflected five development barriers against indigenous movement including “not realized grass roots organizations,” “lack of cohesion power among movement organizations,” “displacement of the role of political elite,” “lack of political resources,” and “early participation in public elections of national system.” Elections consumed movement resources, brought frustration, and gave bad association to indigenous peoples with the indigenous movements(Icyang, 1994: 34-36). I returned to Southern Taiwan in 1989 and cooperated with Lin Ming-De, Wumasi (Le Si), and Walis Nokan to publish the Indigenous Newspaper in Pingtung and proposed the appeal of “community-centered programs” in pursuit of “battling at indigenous villages and attacking from community.” Through the newspaper publication, we promoted concepts of indigenous movements. Walis Nokan later also established his Hunter Culture (獵人文化) to discuss various issues of indigenous movements of community including languages, hunting, and traditional knowledge transcending limits of appeals of political rights. Many people define community-centered programs as the “separation” from the indigenous movements, but I think the use of “diversion” may be more appropriate. After all, the Association for the Promotion of Indigenous Rights had no assets at that time and it relied heavily on fund raising. It offered no public post or other political jobs. There had been no struggling over “resources” and “positions” or competition for resources that lead to separation. At most, there have been discrepancy of concepts as well as choices of movement paths and tactics. I chose to leave big cities for the realization of the concept “returning to the place where you began” proposed by Gao Shan Qing and bottlenecks encountered by the development of the Association for the Promotion of Indigenous Rights. The defeated elite of indigenous movements in running for elections, especially, indicated difficulties such as the insufficient strength in basic level, the realization of concepts of indigenous movements only in urban areas and the failure to reach indigenous communities.
III. From community-centered programs to Indigenous Parliament: A New Journey of Indigenous Movements?
After 1990, community-centered programs brought a new path to the indigenous movements. Although the scope is not so extensive as the pan-indigenous movements, it attracted media attention dramatically in the urban area. In indigenous communities, in rural areas, in mountains and forests, spark aspired by community indigenous movements presents the most direct way for concepts of indigenous movements to contact with indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples then can meet face to face with advocates of indigenous movements and get to know and accept proposals of indigenous movements. After 1990, community indigenous movements appeared everywhere like sparks including “Anti-Makazayazaya Reservoir,” “Hualien Taroko Anti Oppression, Fighting for Survival, and Returning My Land” movement, “Anti-Magaw (Cilan Mountain) National Park,” the 1995 Anti Asia Cement Corporation, Taiwan Cement Corporation by Truku People” Movement, “Return of Tarowan of Truku People in Hsiaolin Village,” “Return to Ancestral Land of Thao People- Puzi’s Movement,” “Anti-Nuclear Waste Dump and Save Orchid Island of Tao.” In addition to political protests, community-centered programs also brought the other type of cultural renaissance movement, for example, the wave of cultural and roots searches including “Return to Central Mountain Ranges for Searching Roots Event of Bunun People” in 1995 and “Tracing Clouded Leopard by Rukai People-Reconnaissance of Historical Trails” between 1996 and 1997.
The drive of community-centered programs gradually inspired alliances between communities and organizations of indigenous parliament. The earliest organization of indigenous parliament was seen in Tao people of Orchid Island. In 1995, Tao people under the consensus of “Anti-Nuclear Waste Dump and Save Orchid Island,” established “Tao Parliament” and began announced their appeals to fight against nuclear waste dump on Orchid Island with the name of the Parliament. Later during the process to gain for forest land ownership, supported by the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, in 1997, preparation for “Atayal Parliament” was started and on December 10th, 2000, it was officially established with the goal to look for ethnic autonomy. Jointly promoted and prepared by Bunun Cultural Foundation, Bunun Cultural Development Headquarters and Bunun Cultural and Economic Development Association since 1997, the “Bunun Parliament” has not been officially established, but from time to time proposes Bunun opinions and appeals. Although Tsou people are among those who started the Parliament in early stagy, yet they promoted the so-called “Tsou Meeting.” From 1992 to 1999, Tsou people convened “Tsou Meeting” during Tomb-Sweeping Festival to build consensus. In 2001, Tsou on Mayasvi Festival led by their leader Voyu Peongsi announced the “21st Century Tsou Declaration” to voice their strong determination of autonomy. Thao people, who have long settled down in Sun Moon Lake, in 2005 also formally established their Parliament at Sun Moon Lake Ita Shou Living Culture Restoration Community. The community leader chose 25 parliament members from the top seven family names and members elected a Chair. In 2008, “Pinuyumayan Parliament” was founded by eight Shes and ten communities to build consensus and collect opinions towards Pinuyumayan culture, social movements, and sustainability. After 2013, Sediq and Rukai also set up their Sediq Parliament (2013) and Rukai Parliament (2017) respectively. In addition to the grand commencement ceremony, Rukai Parliament also officially announced the area of traditional territories based on land investigation of traditional territories conducted over a decade and vowed to promote “semi-country to country relationship” for the realization of autonomy.
Besides the said indigenous groups, Paiwan, Truku, and Pangcah are also actively preparing their parliaments. In the future, indigenous parliaments are expected to become inter-community indigenous organizations to communicate and negotiate community opinions internally and serve as contact windows externally for negotiations and dialogues with other ethnic groups, local governments, and national government.
The publication of Gao Shan Qing in the journey of indigenous movements is not a long period of time and it did not become a permanent organization of social movement. It played a role for enlightenment not as an actual movement organization in the history of indigenous movement history. The real leading role of contemporary indigenous movement shall be attributed to the Taiwan Indigenous Rights Promotion Association. Now, it has been three decades since the first initiation of indigenous movement. From urban to rural communities, from grass roots to government, we have seen separation and diversion of power and gathering and separation of people and they all present self-reflection of indigenous culture and the time for indigenous peoples to fight for ethnic justice. Now indigenous movements in urban area may become a history, but Bu-Luo movements are in the rise. In the future, indigenous parliaments will become the mainstream to lead indigenous peoples onto a new journey of indigenous movement.
Please note that words of“barbarians”,“uncivilized”used in this Issue only reflect to original texts used in the quoted historical literature and they do not contain any discrimination.
Reference
夷將．拔路兒，1994。〈臺灣原住民運動發展路線之初步探討〉，《山海文化》4: 22-38。
汪明輝，〈台灣原住民族運動的回顧與展望〉。頁 95-135，收錄於張茂桂、鄭永年主編，《兩岸社會運動分析》，臺北：新自然主義，2003年。
洪輝祥，〈都市原住民社會運動史〉，頁 263-310，收錄於蔡明哲主編，《臺灣原住民史：都市原住民史篇》，南投市：臺灣省文獻委員會，2001年。
海樹兒．犮剌拉菲，〈原住民參選立法委員之研究〉，臺北：政大民族系博士論文，2007年。
謝世忠，《認同的污名：臺灣原住民的族群變遷》，臺北：自立晚報社，1987年。
Tiaban Sasala
Rukai people.
PhD from Graduate Institute of Ethnology in University of Washington.
His research specialties include Anthropology of Disaster, Environmental Anthropology, Indigenous Traditional Realm and Land, Indigenous Culture.
Currently, Tiaban Sasala is the Dean of College of Indigenous Studies in I-Shou University.
Related articles
