Talk:Taiwanese indigenous peoples/Archive 2013

Shipwrecked sailors
Page 23

http://books.google.com/books?ei=TXENUfOJFeaJ0QHi4ICYBg&id=aL0UAAAAIAAJ&dq=aborigines+killed+shipwrecked+sailors+formosa&q=rocky+death#search_anchor

"Prom the beginning of the nineteenth century scores of ships of all registries had been shipwrecked on the rocky southesm and eastern coasts of Formosa, and frequently the crews met with death or enslavement at the hands of the aboriginal ..."

Page 63

http://books.google.com/books?ei=lHMNUauaL8qC0QHc2YD4Cg&id=_5QOAAAAIAAJ&dq=The+crews+of+many+British+and+American+ships+were+thus+murdered.+...+no+better+than+the+aborigines%2C+made+a+business+of+stripping+wrecks%2C+and+torturing%2C+enslaving%2C+or+killing+the+survivors.+...+Shipwrecked+sailors+of+all+nations+were+still+being+murdered%3B+attacks+grew+upon+the+traders+and+especially+upon+the+missionaries.&q=crews+murdered#search_anchor

"The crews of many British and American ships were thus murdered. On the west coast, too, the Formosan-Chinese, no better than the aborigines, made a business of stripping wrecks, and torturing, enslaving, or killing the survivors. ... Shipwrecked sailors of all nations were still being murdered; attacks grew upon the traders and especially upon the missionaries...."

Page 16

http://books.google.com/books?id=5OdHAAAAYAAJ&q=aborigines+killed+shipwrecked+sailors+formosa&dq=aborigines+killed+shipwrecked+sailors+formosa&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TXENUfOJFeaJ0QHi4ICYBg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAjgK

"The unruly state of the aborigines and the Chinese distrust of foreigners caused many critical situations and even tragedies for foreign shipping; shipwrecked sailors being maltreated and sometimes killed.' The foreign nations retaliated with ..."

Page 185

http://books.google.com/books?id=xwQeBlF4YQwC&pg=PA185#v=onepage&q&f=false

"It was open season on shipwrecked sailors"

And speaking of primary sources, since you defend their use, why not throw a few in?

http://books.google.com/books?id=wWQvAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA263#v=onepage&q&f=false

"The slight intercourse they have had with Europeans has commenced to tell. Until recently no unfortunate mariners, driven on the southern coast, met with any mercy at the hands of the savages; and the massacre of Captain and Mrs. Hunt and the crew of the American barque Rover, by the wild Koa-luts, is still fresh in the memory of us all"

http://books.google.com/books?id=eWQvAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=OQwcAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA256#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Their first purpose accomplished—after the Americans, for example, had ignominiously failed— they established a permanent camp, and refused to remove or apologize until the Government at Peking had bought them off with an indemnity. From that time dates the first serious attempt to make the island an integral part of China. Even yet the eastern coast is a menace to civilization, and the prospect of crews being shipwrecked and eaten is by no means an imaginary one. The Chinese pirates —as the recent attack on the American steamer San Pablo in the Formosan channel shows— are bad enough ; but to have cannibals inhabiting with impunity a long coast of nearly two hundred miles in the very track of the world's commerce is a disgrace to China. True, the eastern side of Formosa is much less traversed than the western or Chinese side, yet it is an inexcusable shame that China has not yet subdued the tribes on the cannibal side of this beautiful island. Our own records of mercantile disaster on this coast, though few, are sufficiently horrible, while the death of our sailors and the loss of the gallant young officer Alexander Slidell Mackenzie, jr., are still fresh in the minds of naval men of this generation."

Rajmaan (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of aboriginals
Pictures from old magazines and books. The first two are in public domain. The third is still copyrighted

The National Geographic Magazine, Volume 37

http://books.google.com/books?id=KPB_AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA280#v=onepage&q&f=false

Peoples Of All Nations: Their Life Today And Story Of Their Past (in 14 Volumes) By J.A. Hammerton

http://books.google.com/books?id=aYbHbqG3h94C&pg=PA2097#v=onepage&q&f=false

Adventures in Photography: Expeditions of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology By Alessandro Pezzati

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZLiVMof1xhcC&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ethnography and Education
these sources are public domain and primary, they should be put into wikibooks and linked from there to this article.

Japanaese ethnography

http://books.google.com/books?id=DASbFaFwTUgC&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q&f=false

Dutch, Chinese, and Japanese education of the aboriginals

http://books.google.com/books?id=2opLAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA4-PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false

Modern source on Dutch education of aboriginals

http://books.google.com/books?id=uDdDaXtUhPQC&pg=PA233#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Why We Can't Use Primary Sources
Rajman has flattered me with a mention above and asked me to comment on the use of primary sources. I haven't had time to familiarize myself with the details of the discussion on this page, so I will confine my comments to the general principles, which are not self-evident. You probably know all this already, but it might be useful to spell it out.

No original research is a policy article which says "rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Identifying reliable sources explains the differences, but in a nutshell, a Primary Source is an eye-witness account or document from the time.

It is frustrating but entirely justifiable that Wikipedia policy does not allow us to use eye-witness missionaries or diplomats such as MacKay,Davidson, or Rutter to establish facts, though quotes could be used to illustrate or give spice. They are Primary Sources. Sangren is fine. The reason is that we as editors have no way to evaluate primary sources.

We also need to avoid Tertiary sources, which means general textbooks, encyclopedias, and books which do not use primary sources but rely on secondary sources -- tertiary sources can be good if the author is familiar with the sources in the field. The principle is to get the source which is based on an expert's evaluation and synthesis of primary sources. A reliable source will also be one which is published in a place where it is aimed at specialists who will tear it to pieces if it's wrong. No source is infallible, but some are less fallible than others.

How do we find good secondary sources? In a a field like this, as opposed to science or popular music, for instance, it's going to be some work. Identifying_reliable_sources talks about what they are. I'm afraid the bad news is that you can't just search Google Books, though this is a terrific resources which we should all take advantage of. But the place to begin is a good public or college library to locate solid works from reputable academic or scholarly presses. Another wonderful tool is WorldCat, which often will give a link to a Google book.

In this case, in just a few minutes I searched WorldCat for "History of Taiwan," and it showed me that the category I should have searched was "Taiwan -- History." OK, then with a few clicks I got a long list, from which I chose the ones with Previews. First was Rubenstine's History, which I searched for "Cannibalism." No dice. Then: Josiane Cauquelin, "The Aborigines of Taiwan the Puyuma: From Headhunting to the Modern World,". Bingo. There may well be better ones I could have found with a few more minutes work.

It may very well be that the best source does not have a Preview, and in that case it might be possible to get the book from a local library, perhaps through inter-library loan. In many cases if you are going to work on a particular topic, you can buy good sources in paperback. They may be available second hand from a local store or online at AbeBooks, Alibris, or Bookfinder.

You can't take shortcuts if you want to make a good article, but it's tremendously satisfying when you put in the work and produce something which will last.

Hope this helps. This article is an important one, so the aim should be to give the reader the facts arranged into a clear story, explaining the debates.

Cheers, ch (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nice comments. See mine above, if you're interested. If not, have a nice day. • Serviceable†Villain 09:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Cannibalism
The following information with multiple sources was recently deleted. Can someone explain why? Readin (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reports from American envoys and others suggest that Taiwanese aboriginals under Qing rule were treated extremely harshly. Presbyterian missionary George Leslie Mackay in From far Formosa (1896) reported that "if a savage is killed inland, the heart is eaten, flesh taken off in strips, and bones boiled to a jelly and preserved as a specific for malarial fever" . American consul James W. Davidson described in The Island of Formosa (1903) how the Han Chinese in Taiwan ate and traded in their aboriginal victims' flesh, a practice also mentioned by Owen Rutter in Through Formosa (1923), whose account bears some similarities to Davidson's . Sangren, in History and Magical Power in a Chinese Community (1987) mentions Davidson's account, adding that elderly Ta-ch'i informants had corroborated his claims.

Readin, you do realize that those alleged instances of Han chinese eating taiwan aboriginals will not reflect badly on mainland chinese, but on Taiwanese people who are the descendants of those han chinese "cannibals"? Since you eagerly defend the POV of taiwan independence, I cannot help but wonder what your motivation is. What is the point of this ad hominem attack?


 * Okay, now I see that you weren't the one who added the paragraph nor readded it, sorry for jumping to conclusions. But the paragraph is still in violation of wikipedia rules, see my explanation.

And the paragraph constitutes WP:Synthesis and WP:OR, because since most of the sources are primary sources, you can only quote the,verbatim. Any interpretation and combination with other sources in order to prove a point, ie. that aboriginals under Qing rule were oppressed ans Han chinese were all cannibals, is synthesis and original research.

And why not put the source in context? The cannibalism happened during raids by aboriginal head hunters looking for victims to behead.

"Should the head-hunting expedition end in failure the braves are utterly ashamed, and in some tribes dare not return to their own village for three days. Failure is in any case a disgrace, and they take care to fail but seldom. But should one of their number be caught or killed, then there is wild lamentation in the tribe, and the fatal place is shunned for years.

And woe to the head-hunter that falls into the hands of the Chinese. The mercy he has shown is meted out to him. At Sa-kiet-a-koe, a Chinese city of sixteen thousand inhabitants in the Kap-tsu-lan plain, I witnessed a scene illustrative alike of the character of both races. A month before, at a Chinese house a mile out of the city, where many were assembled at night for idolatrous worship, one came in and reported a mysterious stirring among the stalks of hemp outside. Savages were at once suspected, and the men armed themselves with guns and other weapons and started in pursuit. The savages fled. Five were killed, five escaped to the bush, one sought refuge in a tree; but the dogs traced him, and he was taken prisoner, brought to the city, and imprisoned. He was kept in ignorance of his fate until on the appointed day he was led to the execution ground near the military mandarin's yamen. People crowded about in large numbers. Two executioners arrived, each with a heavy broadsword about two feet in length. Men and boys stood around feeling the weapons and remarking on their worth. The third gun sounded, and in a few minutes twenty soldiers with musty Remington rifles came hurriedly along. Behind them two coolies carried the miserable creature in an open, shattered sedan-chai1. A bamboo stick, holding a paper with written characters stating the crime for which he was to die, was stuck through his hair and down his back, inside the cords which bound his hands behind him, and extended two feet above his head. When the chair was dropped the wretch crouched and had to be dragged out. His face was horribly contorted and the very picture of despair and cowardly fear. He crouched for a moment, then fell forward. One blow was struck from behind, then the other executioner advanced and sawed the head off with his large blade. The head was tied to a bamboo pole and carried away to be put up on the west gate. Scores were there on purpose to get parts of the body for food and medicine. Under such circumstances, or if a savage is killed inland, the heart is eaten, flesh taken off in strips, and bones boiled to a jelly and preserved as a specific for malarial fever."

"From far Formosa; the island, its people and missions, ed. by J.A. Macdonald" (1896) By George Leslie Mackay

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAUPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA275#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAUPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA276#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * [As far as I can see the Hans in question are mainlanders; hard to see how they could be Taiwanese]. But here's the real point...  Crying WP:Synth is the refuge of choice for lower-intensity edit warriors. The reason is this: just about any passage in any article can be framed and discussed in a manner that makes it sound like synth, at least on surface inspection. So people, here's the thing: the sources exist. They are easily located. We quote the sources. If it offends you, learn to accept the fact that your ancestors were not as admirable as you may wish them to be. Don't feel alone; no one's ancestors were. But don't delete reliable sources because you don't like what they say. • Serviceable†Villain 06:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Other rajamann edits need scrutiny. For example, the editor deleted this text, saying it is unsupported by the source: "which sought to transform Taiwan into the supply-end of an extremely unequal flow of assets". Raj was even kind enough to supply a link, which clearly says precisely the same thing as this article says. That is, Japan intended to exploit Taiwan's natural resources in a unilateral manner. That what the source says. that's what this article says. I'll look at other "edits" as well... • Serviceable†Villain 06:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * as far as I can see, you know little about the history of Taiwan. The modern day Taiwanese people are the descendants of those Han chinese migrants from Fujian on the mainland. I'm not Taiwanese, so those cannibals are not "my ancestors". The "Taiwanese people" refere generally to the Hokkien and hakka speaking descendants of mainland han chinese. Less than 2% of the population of modern day taiwan is aboriginal, the majority of taiwanese are descended from han mainlanders. Thats like claiming Singaporeans are mainlanders because their ancestors came from mainland China hundreds of years ago. Singaporean chinese are still referred to as han chinese. Have you bothered to wonder out why we have separate articles on Taiwanese aborigines and Taiwanese people?


 * secondly, it is a serious violation of original research. You apparently haven't listened to anything I said about the source. I did NOT say the source was wrong or that the author was a liar. However, you CANNOT interpret primary sources and use them like secondary sources. You can only quote VERBATIM, which means word by word, with absolutely none of your own input -OR . You are also not allowed to do things like compare two primary sources (thats user generated original research, you need a secondary source which compares the two accounts) and the paragraph contained information not even mentioned in the primary source, such as Qing being oppresive to aboriginals.


 * also see Synthesis. You CANNOT pass your own judgement, like saying that the Qing were oppresive or that Han were exploitive. You can only quote verbatim from the primary source. I know this because when I tried using primary sources myself, User:CWH kindly corrected me. Contact him yourself or an admin and ask them to explain synthesis and original research regarding primary sources.


 * regarding the second link, the text the ip (who is from china, not Japan) deleted, the text says that Japan exploited Taiwan's resources in its own words. You can't quote directly from modern secondary sources since tht is copyvio, so the original editor who added that text was correct. The specific source was not linked to the entire article but rather that single sentence.Rajmaan (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * and speaking of personal attacks, I count at least three ad hominem attacks in your comment - speculating sbout by ethnicity and insinuating that I don't like the content because of it, insulting my edits, and accusing me with "Crying WP:Synth is the refuge of choice for lower-intensity edit warriors". you'd do best to keep the personal attacks down. You've only been here two months and somehow you know about all these instances of edit warriors crying synthesis? Can you show me an example?Rajmaan (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Rajmaann, your comments are all over the text of the entire article, including this unrelated to cannibalism... I am wondering if a new section titled something like... ummm.... "Some concerns" or something like that would help... or if you have a suggestion for organizing this thread, please do say it ... Also, if you see personal attacks in my remarks, then by all means call an experienced admin and have him/her discuss it with me... and as for being on Wikipedia two months, I've been a Wikipedian for... 6 and a half years now, see User:Ling.Nut3. I brought this article to FA (or more accurately, another editor and I did it together)  and defended it at FAR/FARC. I'm supposed to be retired, but I still reply to... concerns... such as yours. • Serviceable†Villain 02:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmm, back in 2010 I doubted the Davidson account as well, but I found this: Michael Rudolph (2006). From Forced Assimilation to Cultural Revitalization: Taiwan's Aborigines and their Role in Taiwan Nativism”, in: Barry Sautman (Ed.), Cultural Genocide and Asian State Peripheries, New York: Macmillan Palgrave, p. 63-102. SEE note on page 90.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ServiceableVillain (talk • contribs) 09:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Davidson and other primary sources are not to be used because its against the rules, and Wikipedia is not a university or academic publisher, so we as editors don't get to use primary sources. Its not about whether Davidson is lying. We are not allowed to analyze primary sources. We can only copy and paste them them into wikisource. We editors using primary sources are the equivalent of a random unknown author picking up a text of George Washington's letters and self publishing a book on it. That would not be considered reliable, even though the letters are real.Rajmaan (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm really busy. Just to let you know, I'm leaning toward accepting your position on the cannibalism, but also leaning toward deleting your additions to the article... I am sorry i don't have time to explain; will explain more later... probably tomorrow. • Serviceable†Villain 14:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

old Map of Taiwan with dotted line between Han and Aboriginal areas
On the front cover of this book.

The Missionary Review of the World, Volume 35 (1912)

http://books.google.com/books?id=D1wDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajmaan (talk • contribs) 05:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Taiwanese aboriginal cuisine
This is a good source. Something for Everyone: Taiwan Indigenous Cuisine by Joseph Yeh Komitsuki (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Speculation about aborginal head-hunting, cannibalism
Those with a "garden of eden" a generalized approach to aborginalism (that is supported by consitent aborginal activism against "civilized" environmental destruction) are taken back when confronted with evidence of headhunting and tribal warfare. Lewis Mumford (in Technics and Civilization) created a "marginalized" model were maladaptive individuals or groups were forced away from early farming villages to form gangs of hunters that did not limit killing to animals. (Mumford goes on to assert this as the violence of the nation-state.) Given this, and also the Cree concept of bear-killers as cannibals (as many Cree belong to "bear society"), I wonder if there was significant difference between mountain humters and plains farmers resulting from this kind of marginalization. That is to say that the head-hunting was liminted to marginalized gangs--who may have been called cannibals for their hunting practices--as a distinct, possibly minority, culture. --John Bessa (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. I've read modern narratives from elderly people who were alive in the days of headhunting. The narratives describe head-hunting as universal among men in some tribes, and women participated in various communal activities related to the preparation of severed heads for various purposes. There's no evidence of marginal gangs etc. Inserting that into the article would be WP:OR. &bull; Serviceable&dagger;Villain 09:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)