Today we won’t discuss the various storms and manufactured news topics caused by the curriculum adjustment incident. Instead, we return to the practical side to talk about what history is, what adjustments are, what a curriculum is, what politics is, and what land is.
Although I am not a history major—and as a student, I had little interest in history (otherwise I wouldn’t have studied high-tech fields)—I believe I have a certain ability to synthesize information.
In fact, history isn’t that complicated. Since our national title is currently the Republic of China, history should naturally be written from the perspective of the Republic of China.
History is a story created because of the existence of “people”; the land is merely the stage, and currently, that stage is called Taiwan.
If one insists on writing history solely from the perspective of a piece of land, that is fundamentally not a national history; that’s politics (or you could call it geography, or a county/township gazette).
Trying to write a history with broad significance from the narrow perspective of a single piece of land clearly deviates from the core values of history, which are to describe the interconnections between events and record facts purely from historical data. This is entirely a political intrusion into textbooks. (And then these people only shout about others being brainwashed, completely ignoring that they are brainwashing others themselves.)
For example, Lien Chan’s grandfather, Lien Heng, once wrote The General History of Taiwan based on the Taiwan Prefecture Gazette. However, neither is sufficient to serve as the foundational history of a nation, just as various counties and cities today have their own gazettes, and even Taiwan Province before it was frozen had its own provincial records.
Their content can be selectively included in a national history depending on its significance, but they cannot stand alone as a national history because that represents an overly narrow and biased historical perspective. (This is the mistake made by the youth on the news today, and the various writers and politicians who support them.)
While the KMT writes history from the perspective of people, it inevitably boasts about itself in small details, like “adding feet to a drawing of a snake” (no wonder people want to mess with you).
However, regardless of that, concerning whether comfort women were forced, I completely agree with the adjustments made by Education Minister Wu Se-hwa. Although I felt anger when learning about this past, and then forgot it as I aged, this memory has been triggered again by these young people. I realize that ultimately, I cannot suppress my indignation toward the Japanese (of the colonial era); this is a level of national and familial hatred.
You can argue that academic fields should use a neutral stance to describe history. In that case, I believe being forced is a historical fact—why do you think it’s not? Furthermore, rather than using the term ‘comfort women,’ a truly neutral term should be ‘sex slaves.’
History that is self-comforting or self-concealing cannot be called neutral.
You might say not to use “forced” because it triggers the painful memories of those girls. But rather than hiding the facts, it’s better to give them justice by revealing the truth.
Do you think that because you don’t want to know those cruel and ugly truths, the victims can forget them? If I were the one harmed, I would prefer the government present the facts truthfully (otherwise, Grandma Siaotao wouldn’t have been fighting the Japanese government all this time!).
To put it simply: as long as we focus on facts rather than individuals, use reason to describe reality, and lay the truth bare before people, leaving no room for the public to escape, only then can the trauma of the past begin to heal. As long as the event doesn’t involve specific living persons, the public will face history with a rational attitude.
Sometimes I feel that many people in Taiwan are like rootless duckweed, not knowing where they came from (or unwilling to believe where they came from) and not knowing where they should go (having no core values for a serious life).
So, as soon as a few people lead the way, everyone swarms and gathers (like group singing, group occupying the Legislative Yuan, group motorcycle riding, group storming the Executive Yuan, group picnicking, group movie watching, group attacking the Ministry of Education).
Should we say that a Taiwanese national character never existed, or that it has vanished through years of ethnic confrontation?
Shouting about national identity while being the first to not identify with your own nation—this is perhaps the most hilarious thing of all.
I am full of lament.
Taiwan’s struggle in the international arena will truly be lost right here. Only when Taiwan’s national strength declines to the point where many people are jumping off buildings will everyone wake up, I suppose. Too many people have forgotten, or simply don’t know, how Taiwan’s current status was built through hard work. And the abundant fruits of all that effort are starting to wither.
Young people starting businesses? My foot. They haven’t even seen the front door, and anyone can shout slogans (once they see reality, they’ll just cry).
Pack up that whole routine about starting snack stalls, cafes, and B&Bs. Stop treating the success stories of a tiny minority as if you’ve already succeeded. Local money is at most self-sufficient, but as national strength fades and inflation rises, the goal of self-sufficiency will drift further and further away.
Which is more important: the history everyone has forgotten, or the history textbooks everyone is noisily arguing about?