Forced Relocation of Taiwan's Highland Indigenous Peoples

Summary

 

Nowadays, most highland indigenous communities have moved away from their traditional territories and relocated to the foothills or valley terraces. Many scholars have attempted to find a fundamental causal force to explain this history. Tadao Yanaihara (矢內原忠雄) and his followers believe that “capitalization” is the fundamental force, similar to the force of gravity that causes objects to fall to the ground. Due to the indigenous peoples inhabiting the mountains and forests, they hinder capitalist exploitation of the natural resources in those areas. In order to facilitate capitalist entry into the mountains and forests, colonial rulers must take action to remove these obstacles and drive the highland indigenous peoples down from the mountains. On the other hand, Tadasu Matsuoka’s (松岡格) universal gravitation formula is“ localization.” In other words, the goal of the rulers is to incorporate indigenous societies into a unitary system of governance and administration, and therefore, the relocation of communities becomes inevitable.

 

Even though these two arguments emphasize different causal forces, they ultimately converge: the fate of indigenous societies has already been predetermined, and history simply moves towards that outcome. This conception of time cannot imagine alternative paths in history that could lead to completely different outcomes. The fascination with fundamental causal forces leads them to adopt a universal progressive principle to explain historical processes. Similar to the laws of physics, the efficacy of the progressive principle does not change based on events; events are merely surface disturbances at most. Matsuoka, in order to emphasize the “continuity” of localization, denies the significant impact of the Musha Incident (霧社事件) on the process of collective relocation. Similarly, historical figures are merely instrumental roles that propel history towards its predetermined ending, devoid of individuality and lacking self-will. In this type of historical interpretation, individuals are insignificant, and anyone could fulfill the same role.

 

This book (mainly chapter 2) points out that forced relocation is not the only possible historical trajectory. Prior to the Musha Incident, the official approach towards highland indigenous peoples was primarily focused on local reservation. The 1926-1930“ Classification Surveys” (區分調查) used a standard of 3 hectares per person and designated reservation areas around the current settlements or existing cultivated lands. Only when the reservation areas failed to meet the 3-hectare standard did they attempt to relocate the excess population elsewhere. The subsequent“ Indigenous Area Development Surveys” (蕃地開發調查) initiated in 1930 essentially followed the same policy, with adjustments made to the reservation area to better accommodate agricultural needs. If history had continued along this path, most indigenous communities would have continued to reside in their traditional territories.

 

However, the Musha Incident that erupted in October 1930 led to the resignation of high-ranking officials in the Taiwan Governor-General’s Office. Subsequently, the newly appointed Governor-General of Taiwan ordered a comprehensive review of existing policies. Just before this, agricultural technician Kamehiko Iwaki (岩城龜彥), who advocated the primacy of rice cultivation, took over the leadership of the “Indigenous Area Development Surveys”. The survey policy had already been finalized before he assumed the position, and without the appropriate timing, he likely would not have had sufficient legitimacy to overturn the established policy. Coincidentally, he encountered the opportunity of the“ comprehensive review of existing policies,” which allowed him to incorporate rice centered ideology into the “Outline of Indigenous Policies” (理蕃政策大綱) and change the approach to the surveys. As a result, the original plans for reservation areas underwent significant revisions, and the relocation of highland indigenous peoples to the foothills for rice cultivation became the new policy core.

 

In fact, various departments such as forestry administration, health administration, and national parks had opposing views. Several scholars from Taihoku Imperial University (臺北帝國大學) also stood on the opposing side. The opposition camp advocated for allowing highland indigenous peoples to remain in the mountains and develop industries suitable for the mountainous regions. This shows that the so-called “rulers” are not just one person but are composed of multiple departments and individuals with diverse perspectives competing for dominance. If the Musha Incident had not occurred to trigger a comprehensive review of existing policies, or if the timing of the review had not coincided with Iwaki holding that position, history might not have unfolded as we later observed. It is also possible that alternative approaches could have prevailed.

 

Although Iwaki emerged victorious in this round, he still faced constraints from other departments. The control over suitable paddy fields in the foothills was not solely in the hands of the Indigenous Affairs Section. Other departments holding land rights may have had different plans and might not have been willing to release the land. As a result, the number of people relocated to the foothills was still restricted. By 1934, Iwaki had to compromise with the reality and could only select a portion of the indigenous communities to be relocated. The statistical analysis in Chapter 3 reveals that the steeper the terrain and the more extensive the agriculture practiced by the indigenous communities, the more likely they were to be prioritized for relocation. As for displaying friendliness towards the ruling authorities (whether genuine or superficial), it did not necessarily reduce the likelihood of being relocated. From this, it can be seen that the core consideration of relocating to the foothills was to transform the indigenous peoples, who practiced extensive shifting cultivation, into rice farmers. Iwaki and his like-minded individuals believed that cultivating rice was essential for the indigenous peoples to evolve into civilized beings.

 

As a result, the relocation operation aimed to allocate a certain number of paddy fields per household on average. Bureaucrats were busy searching for suitable locations for paddy field development and calculating the number of households and individuals that could be allocated based on the area. If a certain location could accommodate 50 households, then 50 households would be selected from the relocation list. This individual-based calculation failed to consider the integrity of social networks. Consequently, many indigenous communities were divided into several pieces, and closely related communities were separated and scattered across different suitable paddy field areas, ultimately disrupting the“ existing social relations.” Furthermore, many distanced or even hostile communities were merged together, often making it difficult for them to unite. Chapters 4 to 7 meticulously describe these occurrences through a series of maps and social network diagrams. For readers who are not interested in these details, one key point to grasp is that, to some extent, forced relocation did indeed disrupt the social network structure.

 

People often like to speculate about motives and thus derive a narrative framework from the aforementioned results: “Back then, we were the most fierce in resisting Japan. The Japanese, in order to divide our strength, relocated us from there to here.” This type of story is easily understood and has gained wide popularity in postwar anti-Japanese nationalist discourse, making it politically correct. Indigenous peoples from various regions have incorporated their own historical memories into this narrative framework. However, this book attempts to remind readers that retroactively inferring motives from consequences often confuses cause and effect. Many times, consequences arise as side effects or even“ unintended consequences.” In fact, we do not need to prove the disruption of existing social relations through unsubstantiated Japanese conspiracies. Regardless of the motives, the key point is that the allocation mechanism based on “individual units” easily leads to group fragmentation.

 

The desire for understanding motives has led historical research to focus on the relevant documents of policy or plan formulation. Project proposals are written to secure funding, so they are filled with various lofty motives and reasons. While understanding the formation of policies or plans is valuable, it should not be the sole emphasis, as it neglects the examination of actual occurrences. The actual circumstances often deviate from the original plans. Chapter 2 also points out that several project proposals frequently cited in the literature differ significantly from what actually happened. Assuming that we grasp history by merely studying these documents may result in constructing an unrealized history. Therefore, it is not only dangerous to retroactively infer motives from consequences, but inferring results from motives or plans can also lead to problems. While motives can drive events, outcomes are usually the convergence of the methods employed, certain external conditions, and specific timing. By elucidating these links, we can provide better causal explanations.

 

This book focuses on events to illustrate how actions have transformed existing rules and social structures in specific moments. It showcases path dependence, temporal heterogeneous causality, and global contingency along the historical path formed by a sequence of events.