查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 去殖民與再殖民的對抗:以一九四六年「臺人奴化」論戰為焦點
- 當代泰國華人政治認同與角色變遷之研究
- 邁向少數劇場--後殖民主義中少數論述的劇場實踐:以臺灣「歡喜扮戲團」與英國「歲月流轉中心」的老人劇場展演主題內容為例
- 評介何義麟著《跨越國境線:近代臺灣去殖民化之歷程》
- 評陳培豐《「同化」的同床異夢:日治時期臺灣的語言政策、近代化與認同》
- 評何義麟《跨越國境線--近代臺灣去殖民化之歷程》
- 評陳培豐著[王興安, 鳳氣志純平編譯]《「同化」の同床異夢--日治時期臺灣的語言政策、近代化與認同》
- 馮友蘭徹底的民族主義思想的形成和發展(一八九五∼一九四五)(1)
- 九0年代澳洲基廷政府與霍華德政府對國家利益觀點之比較分析
- 政黨競爭與政黨聯合--議題取向的分析
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 去殖民與再殖民的對抗:以一九四六年「臺人奴化」論戰為焦點=Decolonization vs. Recolonization: The Debate over “T'ai-jen nu-hua” of 1946 in Taiwan |
---|---|
作 者 | 陳翠蓮; | 書刊名 | 臺灣史研究 |
卷 期 | 9:2 民91.12 |
頁 次 | 頁145-201 |
分類號 | 571.11 |
關鍵詞 | 去殖民; 再殖民; 同化; 臺人奴化論戰; 國家認同; Decolonization; Recolonization; Assilimation; The debate over "T'ai-jen nu-hua"; National identity; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 二二八事件前的一九四六年,臺灣官民雙方曾在報紙期刊展開歷時一整年的激烈論戰。官方指控受日本殖民統治五十年的臺灣人已經「奴化」,非得經過「中國化」,不能享有同等對待。臺灣人知識份子則強力反擊,認為官方以此為藉口掩飾統治失敗,並對日本統治功過重新評價。 本文旨在檢視此項「臺人奴化」論戰的過程與內容,並指出,戰後陳儀當局的統治帶有嚴重的政治歧視,其「中國化」政策的思維方式與舊殖民者無異,對臺灣人而言,祖國的「光復」只不過是同族的「再殖民」。其次,「奴化」的指控對臺灣人尊嚴傷害至深,受挫的臺灣精英企圖自我防衛,乃從過去被殖民經驗中尋找「我者」與「他者」的區別,亦即,「日本統治近代化論」其實可以說是「臺人奴化論」的反論。 最後,本文也指出戰後臺灣人知識份子對臺灣文化主體性的主張,而對中國的失望與自主、自治意識的增強,在二二八事件之前,臺灣人的祖國認同已逐漸消褪。 |
英文摘要 | Before the 228 Uprising, there were many fierce debates among officials and Taiwanese people in newspapers and journals throughout the year of 1946. the authority censured that Taiwanese had been “enslaved” from fifty years of colonization by Japanese, and they further insisted that Taiwanese should not be treated equally before being “ Chinesized”. Taiwanese intellectuals strongly counterattacked and deemed that the officials were making an excuse for their maladministration. At the same time, the intellectuals reevaluated the legacy of Japanese rule over the island. This artilc examines the process of the debate over “T’ai-jen nu-hua” and argues that, fisrt, Chen Yi’s postwar governing policies implicated huge discrimination. The “Chinesization” policy was just another appearance as the same thinking mode as the old colonizer. To Taiwanese, all this meant that “restore to the mother country” was nothing but being “recolonized by a compatriot”. Second, the censure of “T’ai-jen nu-hua” seriously hurt Taiwanese people’s dignity. Humiliated Taiwanese elites intended to therefore acknowledge the difference between “us” and “them” from then colonized past. Namely, the discourse of “modernization through Japanese ruling” became a counter-argument to the condemnation of “T’ai-jen nu-hua”. This article also points out Taiwanese intellectuals’ assertion about the subjectivity of Taiwanese culture. In despair of mainland Chinese governing and thus the enhancement of a self-governing consciousness, the island’s Chinese identity withered away before the 228 Uprising. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。