My head hurts. It pounds, like a demon trying to burst out. Knock knock knock, in concert with my heartbeat. Please make it stop--I just downed several aspirins and a gush of water. Is that not enough? I don't really want to finish my TIC, but I also want to at the same time--I want something that I can happily present to Kevin, to my parents. Maybe I'll just rant about whatever is running through my mind about the whole thing. Let's summarize like I did to Hao Yi and Viv.
So basically I'm writing about the issue of Taiwanese identity. Oops just turned to facebook again. Dammit how do I stop myself? Anyway...
I am essentially turning the issue of Taiwanese national identity into an exploration of what national identity is. I come to the conclusion that national identity is something that is based on invented thoughts, something born out of emotion and sentiment rather than reason. This is the case with both China and Taiwan. The Chinese nation did not truly exist in a unified form before the 20th century, and in order to push the agenda of creating a unified Chinese nation, intellectual and political elites had to "rewrite" history in a way that made it seem like by creating this Chinese nation we continuing a 4000-year old culture and tradition that has always existed. In Taiwan the same thing is happening. People like Chen Shui-bian, as Ching Cheong said, are trying to say that Taiwanese history has been separate from Chinese history for 400 years, and thus by claiming Taiwanese independence they are continuing a unified cultural lineage that has always existed.
By pointing out how contrived both nationalist ideologies are, I am basically taking a step back and saying that both arguments are foundless from a logical perspective, that neither side is more "right" than the other--it's a matter of emotional preference. But at the same time, when we look at a global perspective, it seems that nationalism is becoming more and more important. If that is the case, then there is a major conflict: the issue of national identity is exceedingly important as it plays such a huge role in societies all around the world, and especially in Taiwan, where the issue actually dominates politics, yet there can be no correct answer. The argument is essentially pointless, yet it is at the same time extremely important.
Ahh that felt good, and my head is hurting a little bit less now.
So basically I'm writing about the issue of Taiwanese identity. Oops just turned to facebook again. Dammit how do I stop myself? Anyway...
I am essentially turning the issue of Taiwanese national identity into an exploration of what national identity is. I come to the conclusion that national identity is something that is based on invented thoughts, something born out of emotion and sentiment rather than reason. This is the case with both China and Taiwan. The Chinese nation did not truly exist in a unified form before the 20th century, and in order to push the agenda of creating a unified Chinese nation, intellectual and political elites had to "rewrite" history in a way that made it seem like by creating this Chinese nation we continuing a 4000-year old culture and tradition that has always existed. In Taiwan the same thing is happening. People like Chen Shui-bian, as Ching Cheong said, are trying to say that Taiwanese history has been separate from Chinese history for 400 years, and thus by claiming Taiwanese independence they are continuing a unified cultural lineage that has always existed.
By pointing out how contrived both nationalist ideologies are, I am basically taking a step back and saying that both arguments are foundless from a logical perspective, that neither side is more "right" than the other--it's a matter of emotional preference. But at the same time, when we look at a global perspective, it seems that nationalism is becoming more and more important. If that is the case, then there is a major conflict: the issue of national identity is exceedingly important as it plays such a huge role in societies all around the world, and especially in Taiwan, where the issue actually dominates politics, yet there can be no correct answer. The argument is essentially pointless, yet it is at the same time extremely important.
Ahh that felt good, and my head is hurting a little bit less now.
