Bodies and StructuresMain MenuWhat We're DoingOverview essayHow to Use This SiteAn orientationModulesList of modulesTag MapConceptual indexComplete Grid VisualizationGrid Visualization of Bodies and StructuresGeotagged MapGeographic IndexWhat We LearnedContributors share what they learned through the Bodies and Structures process.ReferencesReferences tag for all modules and essayContributorsContributor BiosAcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsContact usContact information pageLicensing and ImagesThe original content of this site is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND International 4.0 License.David Ambaras1337d6b66b25164b57abc529e56445d238145277Kate McDonald306bb1134bc892ab2ada669bed7aecb100ef7d5f This publication is hosted on resources provided by the College of Humanities and Social Sciences IT department at NC State University.
Producing Indigenous Spaces in Colonial Taiwan
12018-04-23T13:40:23-04:00CHASS Web Resources398fc684681798c72f46b5d25a298734565e6eb822The uses and abuses of the idea of an "indigenous spatiality" in colonial Taiwan.plain2018-07-10T14:44:35-04:00Kate McDonald306bb1134bc892ab2ada669bed7aecb100ef7d5fThe Government General of Taiwan used the idea of an indigenous spatiality to transfer ownership of land controlled by indigenous communities to state and private ownership. This is not to say that indigenous communities did not have local modes of spatial representation, spatial ordering, and senses of space. It is simply to assert the commonsense point that many of the spatial sensibilities that scholars have marked as “Indigenous” can also be found in non-Indigenous communities; and, that many indigenous people in Japanese colonial times used and lived the cartographic rationality of urbanized, imperial space (Tsai and Lo 2013; Ziomek 2015. For example, Tsai and Lo analyze the spatial sensibility of the Smangus of the Atayal people, the Tong-li of the Truku people, and the Kuskus of the Paiwan people in present-day Taiwan. They find that the groups use local points of reference for spatial orientation (e.g., upstream / downstream; toward / away the mountain) rather than direct orientation (e.g., north / south / east / west), and that these landmarks also “possess historical and cultural meaning” (406). At the same time, they describe the economic livelihood of these residents as intertwined with, and in many senses relying on a knowledge of, non-Indigenous communities and spaces. Most of the residents they interviewed work outside of indigenous territory in nearby townships; the Smangus are developing an ecological tourism program (392-93). One can find similar examples of indigenous people living in multiple spatialities in the colonial period. Kirsten Ziomek poignantly describes the case of Yahyutz Bleyh. Bleyh, who worked as a translator for the Government General of Taiwan’s Aboriginal Affairs Bureau, traveled extensively throughout Taiwan and to the inner territory. She also persistently navigated the colonial bureaucracy as she sought permission to travel back to Kôbe to visit her husband on his death bed. The Government General dragged its feet so long that she did not arrive in time to see him before he passed away.)