History is the memory of human civilization. However, when this memory is deliberately distorted—even edited at will by 'random individuals' on the internet who then prohibit others from correcting it—history becomes a vehicle for lies. Taiwan's history spans prehistoric, Dutch, Spanish, Ming Zheng, Qing Dynasty, and Japanese periods, yet it has become an object of manipulation by some under the banner of strengthening 'local consciousness.'
Republic of Taiwan? Stop joking. Where is this 'Republic of Taiwan' coming from? It doesn't even have a proper constitution, and you call it a country? Taiwan Province is just a part of the territory of the Republic of China, and together with the Penghu Archipelago and Kinmen and Matsu of Fujian Province, it is collectively called Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu.
Since the Wanli era of the Ming Dynasty, Han Chinese generally referred to Taiwan as 'Dayuan.' The transition from 'Dayuan' to the name 'Taiwan' occurred primarily after the Qing Dynasty took control.
During the 50 years of Japanese rule, the main task of the first three Governors-General of Taiwan (Kabayama Sukenori, Katsura Tarō, Nogi Maresuke) was to suppress the Taiwanese people. By the time of the fourth Governor-General, Kodama Gentarō, the resistance was crushed, and the plundering of Taiwan's resources began.
Pro-Green 'Imperial Subjects' (Kominka) are perhaps the Taiwanese most fond of using the term 'Japanese Rule' (Rizhi). But which term is truly correct for Taiwanese people: Rizhi or 'Japanese Occupation' (Riju)? Let the editor deconstruct why these perspectives are so controversial.
Through the perspective of a pseudonymized individual named 'Xiao Ming,' who holds radical deep-green political views, this article explores his aggressive political stance and discourse on the 'servility of the Chinese people.' The article then discusses the US bans on TikTok and Huawei, questioning the underlying motivations and reflecting on whether Xiao Ming's support for the US suppression of Chinese enterprises ironically confirms the very servile traits he criticizes.
This article compares the KMT and DPP's treatment of the Taiwanese people. The author argues that the KMT's past human rights violations (the 228 Incident and martial law) were a 'historical inevitability' of the post-war era, noting that the actual number of victims was around one thousand and included Communist spies. The author strongly questions why Taiwan independence green-brained supporters criticize the KMT's human rights record while remaining silent about the Japanese massacre of over 400,000 Taiwanese during the Japanese occupation era. The author contends that the DPP treats its own people well 'guaranteed,' but on international issues, uses examples like importing ractopamine-laced American pork, Japanese nuclear-contaminated food, and not daring to claim sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands to argue that the DPP is not truly good to the Taiwanese people.
This article explores the differing stances of Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea on Wikipedia regarding the terminology for the Japanese colonial period. The author points out that South Korea uses Japanese Imperialist Occupation Period, Japan uses Japanese Rule Era, while Taiwan's Wikipedia editors adopt Japanese Rule Period. The author believes that South Korean editors show more backbone, and also mentions that some Taiwanese have added the term Japanese Occupation Period.
This article criticizes the narrative that blames all of Taiwan's current political, economic, educational, and cultural problems on the deprivation of 'elites of the Japanese occupation era' in the February 28 Incident. The author considers such claims to be flowery rhetoric filled with beautiful imagination and 'ridiculous bullshit.' Using the painter Chen Cheng-po as an example, the article points out that his true identity during the incident was a 'Taiwan area council representative'—a political figure—rather than just an artist. It questions why these 'elites' failed to stop the Japanese military's war crimes, the comfort women issue, or the Kominka (imperialization) education. The author mocks the idea of these elites bringing 'beautiful possibilities' and argues that 'Chinese culture' is deeply rooted in Taiwanese people's hearts and shouldn't be blamed on 'Republic of China aesthetics' after the 228 incident.
This article comments on the remarks made by some independence activists on the National Day of the Republic of China (Double Ten Festival), claiming that 'the ROC National Day is not Taiwan's National Day because Taiwan was still in the Japanese colonial era in 1911.' The author refers to these dissenters as 'Taiwanese Imperial Subjects' (Kōmin), arguing that they still live in the imaginary 'glory days' of Japanese colonial rule and therefore refuse to recognize the Republic of China. The article uses a strong analogy to ask if these people refuse to identify with the nation that nurtured them and likens their preference to wanting to celebrate a 'rapist's birthday,' while mentioning that the upcoming Taiwan Retrocession Day on October 25 will further provoke their anger.
A critique of President Tsai Ing-wen's 2016 apology to the Indigenous peoples (Austronesians), questioning her motives and historical standing. The author argues that while the R.O.C. government may have had strategic development flaws, it did not commit mass atrocities against them. Instead, the historical scars—from the Mudan Incident to the brutal suppressions of the Japanese colonial era like the Musha Incident—were caused by Japan. The article suggests Tsai should demand an apology from Japan rather than apologizing on behalf of the R.O.C.