Tag: zuozhuan

China and the ‘Other’: Chinese narratives in Taiwan textbooks

For thousands of years, China has been a powerful nation, emphasising its power over the ‘other’. The ‘Other’ refers to what China previously thought of as anyone just outside the central state, Zhongguo, that is ethnically and culturally different from them. According to David Schaberg, the idea of the ‘Other’ is incredibly useful for understanding Chinese historiography.1

Although most historians discuss the term of the ‘Other’ in the historical context of the Zhou dynasty and the interactions between kingdoms in the Zuozhuan (in the Chunqiu, the Spring and Autumn Annals).2 However, I believe this idea extends into the modern-day, especially regarding how China views Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. I will discuss a brief history of Taiwan and its fight for independence from China. I will then highlight the controversy on whether China presents the idea of Taiwan as the ‘Other’ in Taiwan textbooks or whether Taiwan reverses this and views China as ‘the Other’ in an attempt to highlight their national history as independent from China.

Taiwan’s history is complex. However, to summarise Japan colonised Taiwan following the Sino-Japanese War in 1895. Japanese imperial education was implemented in this era. Shortly after World War II, Chiang Kai-Shek and the Chinese national government, the Republic of China (ROC) took control of Taiwan through the Kuomintang (KMT). In 1949, after losing the Chinese Civil War against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Chiang fled to Taiwan and declared martial law. The KMT governed Taiwan until the 1980s where the Taiwanese were striving for democratisation and indigenisation.3

Therefore, during the period of democratisation and indigenisation, many sought to construct a historical narrative that reflected Taiwan’s own national history (and thus, identity), that de-centred both China and Japan from the narrative. Wei-Chi Chen highlights certain controversies that were faced in Taiwan regarding history textbooks and the history curriculum. He argues that there were three distinct phases of textbook reforms starting in the late 1980s when criticisms against old textbooks started to emerge and ending in 2002, with the ‘nine-year integrated curriculum’.4 One particular textbook that caused bitter controversy was the supplementary history textbook, Getting to Know Taiwan in 1997.5 This textbook was a supplement to the official textbook, which was China-centred, it emphasised the KMT’s role in modernising Taiwan and the rapid economic development that followed.6 The Ministry of Education responded to the backlash it faced from the official textbook, such as it ‘lacking a comprehensive and multi-faceted representation of Taiwan’s history and culture’, and thus created Getting to Know Taiwan.7 However, Getting to Know Taiwan was still controversial because of its emphasis on Japanese colonial rule and its effect on Taiwan.6

Chen highlights the debate on whether China sees Taiwan as the ‘Other’, or whether Taiwan sees China as the ‘Other’. He argues that through these textbook reforms, it is apparent that the answer to this debate should be neither as ‘[these] two manifestly opposed national-history narratives are mutually dependent on each other’s existence’.8 I agree with this statement because I believe, in order for Taiwan to highlight a national narrative and a national identity, it must embrace its historical past, which was colonised by Japan and ruled over later by China (in its most recent history). After embracing this narrative, Taiwan can look towards a national identity that came from these events but moved towards democratisation.

  1. David Schaberg, A Patterned Past: Form and Thought in Early Chinese Historiography, (Massachusetts, 2001), p.130. [↩]
  2. Ibid. pp. 130-135. [↩]
  3. Wei-Chi Chen, ‘The History of an Alien-Nation, or the Alienation of History? The Controversy of History Textbook Reform in Taiwan in the 90s’ (PhD Thesis, New York University 2005), p. 91. [↩]
  4. Ibid. p. 90. [↩]
  5. Ibid. [↩]
  6. Ibid. p. 93. [↩] [↩]
  7. Ibid. p. 94. [↩]
  8. Ibid. p. 97. [↩]

Speeches in the Zuozhuan

Paul R. Goldin highlighted a passage from the Zuozhuan in his article. He presents a tale between a “harsh and thoughtless ruler” and his more benevolent and moral cousin. This passage from the Zuozhuan emphasises the didactic function of speeches and anecdotes typical in the Spring and Autumn Annals (Chunqiu), particularly in this commentary.1

David Schaberg’s chapter of ‘The Rhetoric of Good Order’ in his book A Patterned Past emphasises the role of speeches as a form of historiographical work in the Eastern Zhou period and Warring States period. He argues that speeches reveal a didactic objective and a persuasive function, and it opens a philosophical debate. Moreover, he argues that speeches have a morphable quality to them as one can extract them from the narrative to highlight a moral debate.

In the tale Goldin presents between the Marquis of Jin (the “immoral” one) and Lord Mu of Qin (the “moral” one), the dialogue and speech from each speaker emphasises its persuasive function and reveals a broader “truth” between the social situation and history of the states of Jin and Qin. The “rhetoric of good order” in this passage – meaning the order of the prose reveals a more extensive truth about the history of the era – emphasises a conflicting relationship between the two states and its personified between the two rulers.2

Qing Zheng said, “In ancient times, one would always use [horses] produced by one’s own country in great matters. They are native to the waters and lands and know their people’s minds; they are easily instructed and are accustomed to the roads… Now you use [horses] produced by a different country to carry out warlike affairs; once they become frightened, they will be changeable and will defy their drivers.…They will not be able to advance, retreat, or turn around. Lord, you will certainly regret this.” [The ruler of Jin] did not heed him.3

This speech in this narrative tells us of advice given to the ruler of Jin regarding warfare planning. This speech is important because it emphasises the arrogance of the Marquis of Jin, who dismissed this vital warning. Later in the narrative, we see that his arrogant nature becomes his downfall as Qin forces then capture him. Furthermore, this speech (and the larger narrative) acts as a persuasive tool to the reader because it has clearly stated judgements and principles, repetition of essential structures and concepts such as the validity of using the State horses, in comparison to using another State’s horses, as well as the arrangement of diction. All these persuasive tools are vital for good rhetoric, Schaberg argues.4 Moreover, this speech could perhaps also have a portable quality to them as this advice explains warfare strategy, possibly applicable to any ruler, as well as highlighting that rulers should heed the warnings from their advisors and be less arrogant.

Thus, speeches provide a didactic and persuasive function to the reader as the structure of the prose ultimately reveals a moral objective and judgement. The judgement and principles in the example above illuminate an arrogant leader, which proved to be his downfall, and therefore explains to the reader that the victorious leader and ruler is one of benevolence and justice. This passage is just one example of how the Zuozhuan can act as a moral compass for rulers and others reading the commentary.

  1. Paul R. Goldin, ‘The World of the Zuozhuan’, in Victor H. Mair, Nancy S. Steinhardt and Paul R. Goldin (eds.), Hawaii Reader in Traditional Chinese Culture (Honolulu, 2005), p. 72. [↩]
  2. David Schaberg, ‘The Rhetoric of Good Order’, A Patterned Past: Form and Thought in Early Chinese Historiography (Massachusetts, 2001), p.26. [↩]
  3. Goldin, ‘Zuozhuan’, p. 74. [↩]
  4. Schaberg, A Patterned Past, pp. 43-48. [↩]