Entangled Coloniality Through the Lens of Non-Status Native Nations: On Military Honors Accrued by the Council of Indigenous Peoples
In Taiwan, as the social landscape undergoes transformation following the 2022 Constitutional Court’s ruling that deemed the current Indigenous Peoples Identity Act unlawful, there is a renewed focus on the rights of Plains Indigenous Peoples. This shift in perspective is particularly poignant in light of the recent announcement by Ljaucu Zingrur, the current minister of the Council of Indigenous Peoples, guaranteeing name rectification for Plains Indigenous Peoples and requesting institutional reforms within three years based on the case of Siraya Nation.1 This acknowledgment brings to mind a documentary work Military Honors Accrued by the Council of Indigenous Peoples (2014) by Kavalan filmmaker bauki angaw (1956–) produced a decade ago.
Borrowing its title from a Japanese colonial army photo album published after the 1914 Truku Invasion, the political satire portrays the Council as a collaborator in consolidating, rather than dismantling, the colonial structure in contemporary Taiwan. Among many other themes, the 2.5-hour documentary highlights the Council’s broken promises, compiling various unfulfilled commitments by officials since its establishment in 1996 through the early 2010s.
bauki angaw, Military Honors Accrued by the Council of Indigenous Peoples, film still, 2014. Courtesy the artist.
Despite the growing recognition of Native Taiwanese contemporary arts over the past decade, variable Non-Status Native Nations have yet to be addressed, facing significant challenges that are often underrepresented. angaw’s documentary career began amidst this gap. His film debut, The Kavalan: Past and Present (1997), marked the start of his exploration of Kavalan identity just one year after the founding of the Council, despite the fact that Plains Indigenous identities were still unacknowledged in the public sphere. The series continued in 1999 with a focus on the Kabuasua Nation (Ka-bak-sua and the Siraya Pingpu Grandmother) and culminated in 2001 with a depiction of the Taivoan Nation, another Non-Status People, highlighting their complex internal and external struggles (Trouble, Did Aboriginal Relatives Come?).
In Military Honors, angaw’s voiceover guides us through his firsthand documentation of Indigenous rights movements and archival materials, seamlessly shifting between memories and current affairs. It begins with an audacious Indigenous historiography using Japanese colonial archives, addressing the colonial continuum from the Qing Dynasty (1683–1895) and Japanese occupation (1895–1945) to the ROC settler government (1945–). It then enumerates the policies of successive ministers towards the demands of reclaiming the existence of Native Nations that have been legally underrepresented since the establishment of the Council in 1996.
bauki angaw, Military Honors Accrued by the Council of Indigenous Peoples, film still, 2014. Courtesy the artist.
Throughout the film, the central focus of the ongoing debate is the division, arguments, and contradictions between Status and Non-Status Native Nations. This division can be traced back to the classification of Plain Indigenous Peoples as a byproduct of the colonial continuum since the Qing Dynasty, when Indigenous Peoples were labeled as “raw” or “tamed” savages—terms later transformed by the Japanese colonial regime into “highland” or “lowland” savages, based on their level of assimilation to Han ethnic groups. When the ROC government took over in the post-war era, these labels persisted, continuing to shape today’s political landscape. Despite being externally imposed, these distinctions have entrenched a deep divide between the two groups of Indigenous Peoples. What seems like a contemporary issue is, in fact, rooted in colonial-era classifications that relied on a linear view of civilization and a deliberate strategy of divide-and-rule.2
angaw’s in-depth exploration highlights the struggles of Non-Status Native Nations in Taiwan during the 2000s. The film reveals that their struggle for name and identity rectification was not only against bureaucratic obstacles imposed by the majority Han ethnic settlers but also involved opposition from the Council, which represents the legally recognized Indigenous Peoples. In one scene, renowned Paiwan poet Maljaljaves Mulaneng condemns Indigenous bureaucrats as “colonial compradors,” highlighting the irony of acknowledging Plains Indigenous status as a historical construct while simultaneously denying their contemporary legal recognition through policy. Another poignant moment shows a group of Plains Indigenous protestors laughing uproariously at a ludicrous response from the Council. The press release absurdly states that while one should respect the will of Status Native Nations, those seeking recognition should not place themselves (the “beggars” or Plains Indigenous Peoples) before the host (read: the Status Native Nations). The activists, finding this response both absurd and revealing, decided to help spread the press release.
bauki angaw, Military Honors Accrued by the Council of Indigenous Peoples, film still, 2014. Courtesy the artist.
Looking back a decade later, Military Honors offers a compelling look at colonial collaboration from the perspectives of various key players—official Indigenous elites, Han settler bureaucrats, legislative bodies, and the Council. The film exposes the complex web of power and institutional dynamics at play, capturing the ongoing struggle over Indigenous identity recognition. Bureaucrats argue that easing these standards would risk diluting and ultimately causing the disappearance of the entire Native Nations altogether.3
This argument, citing limited resources and political distribution, remains mainstream despite Taiwan’s Constitutional Court ruling in 2022—a key event supporting the Plains Indigenous movement—that laws linking Indigenous identity to surnames are unconstitutional. Scholars offer a more nuanced perspective, suggesting that while the Sinicization of Non-Status Native Nations has historically rendered them victims, it has also enabled them to gain some benefits from the resources and advantages typically afforded to the Han Taiwanese majority.4
In addition to reviving the accusation that Non-Status Native Nations were “not wanting to be part of us,” another prevalent conspiracy theory suggests that their “return to the fold” is actually a covert alliance with specific Han ethnic communities. This theory posits that the goal is to create a new form of Taiwanese nationalism that would overshadow and further impact the Status Native Nations. In a recorded statement, the then Minister Paelabang Danapan voiced this concern: “If 80% of Han ethnic settlers were recognized as Indigenous, the Indigenous Peoples would disappear... If we acknowledge the Plains Indigenous Nations’ legal status, over 85% of Taiwan’s population would have Indigenous ancestry. I believe that the push for Plains Indigenous name and identity rectification is part of a ‘new Taiwanese nationalism.’”5
bauki angaw, Military Honors Accrued by the Council of Indigenous Peoples, film still, 2014. Courtesy the artist.
bauki’s film also features a group of contemporary Non-Status Native activists who not only oppose using bloodline theory to define ethnic identity but also reject the idea of building Taiwanese nationalism based on genetic ancestry.6 Indeed, it’s the evolving crisis of Taiwanese national identity that continually impacts the quest for Plains Indigenous identity. Many Han ethnic Taiwanese individuals promote mixed heritage, shaping the broader sense of Taiwanese identity.7 Furthermore, some argue that the debate over resource allocation is a red herring. Embracing Non-Status Indigenous Peoples into the larger Indigenous community could actually enhance the political leverage in Taiwan, thereby providing a stronger foundation for resisting colonial bureaucratic policies and offering greater potential for meaningful structural change.8
Military Honors captures the raw realities faced by Non-Status Indigenous Peoples in the era nicknamed the “post-Indigenous Rights Movements,” reflecting the decline of grassroots power since the establishment of the Council in the late 90s. The film not only brings to light these hidden issues but also provides a lens to explore the broad network of collaborative colonialism. It reveals how various layers of power dynamics create a complex, entangled system of control. Whether it’s Non-Status Native individuals confronting the settler government, the Council, or Indigenous elites; Status Native individuals dealing with Han ethnic opportunists and bloodline theorists; or nationalists exploiting Indigenous Peoples for nation-building purposes, the film illustrates the multifaceted nature of collaborative colonialism. This intricate interplay of power and influence casts a critical light on the relationships between Status and Non-Status Native Nations.
So, how can we approach collaborative colonial critique? Through his documentary, bauki angaw emphasizes the need for historical reflection. The contradictions and divisions arise from the divide-and-rule tactics employed by three successive colonial regimes. To analyze this effectively, one must distinguish between the roles of the state and various actors, clarifying the colonial elements within social structures and different collaborative relationships to confront the entangled nature of colonialism. At the end of the film, renowned Puyuma singer Sangpuy Katatepan Mavaliyw is seen performing a victory song of the Siraya, another Non-Status Nation, at their Night festival in Kabuasua tribe. (He is also a dedicated supporter of the rights movement!). This song, as recounted by Sangpuy, was brought to the Puyuma nations in East Taiwan during the Siraya migration in the 19th century and has been preserved over time despite being lost on the West Coast of Taiwan. As the closing piece, Sangpuy’s hauntingly evocative voice seems to suggest that, rather than relying on external Han ethnic members, the Status Native Nations should have a greater opportunity and responsibility to foster reconciliation and collaboration with Non-Status Native Nations. With the Council’s name rectification initiative on the horizon, this emblem of unity between Status and Non-Status Natives provides a hopeful glimpse into what Indigenous Futurism might look like.
Translated by Zian Chen; edited by Wen-Li Chen
1 Translator’s note: There is no standardized English term for non-legally recognized Indigenous in Taiwan, so “Status/Non-Status” is borrowed from Canada to differentiate between those with treaty rights and those without. Unlike in Canada, where “Status” can be lost under certain conditions, Taiwan’s Plains Indigenous Peoples have never had legal recognition beyond municipal levels. In an interview, bauki angaw expressed a preference for “Non-Status Indigenous” over “Plain Indigenous People,” a term imposed by colonial classification. He acknowledges, however, that many peers continue to use the latter due to its familiarity. To present various perspectives, the author will use “Plain Indigenous,” “Non-Status Indigenous,” and “savage,” reflecting the specific contexts and reclamation of these terms by individuals. We recognize that these terms may be contentious and appreciate your understanding as we navigate these complex issues. Private interview, June 17, 2024.
2 Common tensions include some members of the Plains Indigenous Peoples maintaining the “raw” and “tamed” distinction, considering themselves superior. Meanwhile, some officials from the Council have privately expressed discriminatory views, stating, “Plains Indigenous Peoples speak Hokkien; they don’t look like authentic Indigenous Peoples.” For reference, see: Cheng-Feng Shih, “The Disenfranchisement of Plains Indigenous Peoples in Taiwan,” Taiwan International Law Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 1 (2011), pp. 7-38; Liang Ting-Yu, “The Interactions between Plains Indigenous Peoples, Atayal, and Hakka Communities in the Taoyuan and Hsinchu Hill Areas,” Taoyuan Journal of History, No. 12 (2021), pp. 53-92; bauki angaw and Alak Akatuang, “Language Revitalization of Plains Indigenous Languages,” Journal of the Taiwan Indigenous Studies Association, Vol. 8, No. 4 (December 2018), pp. 67-93; Bavaragh Dagalomai, “On Taiwan National Identity and Construction—A Perspective of the Siraya Ethnic Group,” Journal of Taiwan Historical Association, No. 3 (2007), pp. 61-92.
3 Mayaw Dongi, “A Review and Prospect of Official Recognition of Indigenous Peoples in Taiwan,” in Taiwan Plains Indigenous Peoples (Taipei: Avant-garde, 2003), pp. 165-190. See also: bauki angaw and Alak Akatuang,“Language Revitalization of Plains Indigenous Languages.
4 Lien Jung-Shih, “The Recognition of Plains Indigenous Peoples—A Focus on Taiwanese Legal Framework” (Taipei: National Chengchi University Law School, 2021), pp. 64.
5 This discourse evidently draws on Marie Lin’s research, which has faced considerable criticism. See Lin’s article, “We Have Different Blood,” Scientific American Special Issue No. 4 (2006), pp. 122-127.
6 Additional critiques can be found in Chen Shu-Juo and Alak Akatuang, “Plains Indigenous Bloodlines and Taiwanese National Bloodline Theory,” Taiwan Social Research Quarterly No. 70 (2008), pp. 161. Concerns have been raised about the potential drawbacks of using scientific tests to determine Plains Indigenous identity, which might lead those with verified bloodlines to become complacent, while those without could disengage, thereby disrupting cultural revitalization efforts.
7 A-Chin Hsiau notes that research into Plains Indigenous lineage gained significant attention in the 1980s, partly because Taiwanese Hokkien and Hakka communities discovered their Indigenous heritage during their search for roots. This recognition of mixed heritage enhances their distinctiveness from China, challenges Han chauvinism and Sino-centric views, and contributes to the construction of a Taiwanese historical perspective. See Hsiau’s Reconstructing Taiwan: The Cultural Politics of Contemporary Nationalism (Taipei: Lianjing, 2012), pp. 274-322. See also Bavaragh Dagalomai, “On Taiwan National Identity and Construction—A Perspective of the Siraya Ethnic Group.”
8 Pasuya Poiconx suggests that if the Indigenous population can be adequately increased to achieve minimum representation in parliament, Han-ethnic dominated societal structures might be more willing to make concessions on Indigenous rights. For related discussions, see Bavaragh Dagalomai, “Rights Advocacy and Strategic Recommendations for the Restoration of Plains Indigenous Identity,” pp. 55, and Cheng-Feng Shih, “Examining the Deprivation of Plains Indigenous Identity from the Perspective of Rights Protection,” pp. 7-38.