When it was proposed a few weeks ago that statues of Chiang Kai-Shek be removed from Taiwanese military bases, the KMT's biggest objection was that doing so would do violence to history and remembrance. Sure, Chiang may have been a dictator, but he was a big part of Taiwan's past, so his role shouldn't be minimized or forgotten.
Now, it would seem to me that someone making this argument would quite naturally be in favor of memorials to other controversial individuals or groups in Taiwan's history - the Taiwanese aboriginal units that fought on the side of the Japanese during World War II being perhaps, a prime example.
Silly me. When Taiwanese aborigines suggested that a monument be built to honor their war dead, the KMT's intellectual consistency flew out the window. It was perfectly reasonable that Taiwanese military bases house hundreds of statues of OUR guy - the guy behind the White Terror - the KMT said. But somebody in Taiwan wants one - ONE! - memorial to people who fought for Japan?
Why now, that's just completely beyond the pale!
Thus does the KMT's carefully-constructed "Stonewall Jackson" argument collapse. The KMT put forward the notion that America tolerates statues to people who fought for the Confederacy on its soil, therefore, Taiwan ought to similarly continue to honor the Chiangs. But surely, aborigines who fought for the Japanese fall into the same category as America's Confederates. They too, fought and died for a wrong cause.
The entire affair illustrates the kind of tolerance that the KMT demands for itself, but is still unwilling to grant unto others.
(The Taipei Times has a picture of the Taiwanese aborigines defending their honor from the epithets hurled by the pro-KMT press here.)
Comments