The Enduring Influence of the Republic of China on Taiwan Today

1996 ◽  
Vol 148 ◽  
pp. 1054-1071 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph N. Clough

Taiwan's society today has been shaped primarily by four streams of influence: the traditional China stream, the Japanese stream, the Republic of China stream, and the cosmopolitan stream. The traditional China stream gave the people of Taiwan their language and their basic culture and customs. After 1895 the Japanese stream flowed into Taiwan for 50 years, causing many significant modifications to its society and cutting the people of Taiwan off from the critical changes that occurred in Chinese mainland society during that period. In 1945 the Republic of China (ROC) took over Taiwan, bringing from the mainland its ideology, its educational system; its constitutional structure, its political and social institutions, and a governing elite, most of whom spoke a different dialect of Chinese from the people of Taiwan. The purpose of this article is to identify the principal elements of this ROC stream of influence. The cosmopolitan stream, representing primarily the influence of the West, flowed into all the other streams, to some extent influencing traditional China before the fall of the Qing dynasty, but much more powerfully influencing the ROC on the mainland and Japan. Since 1945 the cosmopolitan stream, at first largely American, has also poured into Taiwan, gaining momentum and diversity with each passing year.

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 23-51
Author(s):  
Sixin Ding (丁四新) ◽  
Xiaoxin Wu (吳曉欣)

Abstract Since the reign of Qianlong and Jiaqing in the Qing dynasty, there have been signs of a resurgence of interest in Mohism. Intellectuals became particularly invested in Mozi’s teachings during the period of the Republic of China. “Impartial love,” the notion of equity advocated by Mozi, received the most attention. At the time, most discussions primarily attempted to respond to Mencius’s criticism of Mozi’s doctrine. Some scholars stressed Mohism’s high regard for filial piety and demonstrated persuasively that the concept of impartial love did not closely correspond to Mencius’s labelling of it as “disregarding one’s father.” Other scholars drew a distinction between Mozi and his disciples and identified only the latter as deserving of Mencius’s criticism. Some thinkers affirmed impartial love’s practical significance and saw it as a significant tool for condemning the autocracy and saving the country from imminent downfall. Others vehemently denounced the principle’s impracticability. A close look at these different trends can provide us with a better understanding of the different attitudes of intellectuals in the period of the Republic of China regarding Confucianism and the relationship between Confucianism and Mohism.


Author(s):  
Michael G. Murdock

Sun Yat-sen (generally known as Sun Zhongshan孫中山or Sun Wen孫文 in Chinese) plays a central role in the national narratives of both the Republic of China on Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China, which lionize him as a “national hero” of gigantic proportions and the determined revolutionary who brought low the Qing dynasty. Sun’s formative and early revolutionary years were spent overseas studying or in exile to avoid arrest by Qing authorities, exposing him to foreign contacts, ideals, and funding. Although a stalwart patriot, Sun spent little time in China itself, viewed the world through Christian lenses, and routinely sought foreign aid. In 1911, Sun’s Tongmenghui, or Revolutionary Alliance, overthrew the Qing dynasty, ending two millennia of imperial rule and propelling China into a new stage of sociopolitical development under the Republic of China. The earliest literature on the 1911 Revolution narrated revolutionary events and explained the Qing’s fall as the result of Sun’s foreign connections. Subsequent explanations turned inward, examining factors, figures, events, changes, and participants within China itself. By 1971, studies on local and provincial connections to the 1911 Revolution became popular, spiking every decade. In 2011, the centenary of the 1911 Revolution, interest exploded, producing waves of symposia, document collections, exhibitions, monographs, and articles. Unfortunately for Sun, his 1911 Revolution failed to produce the society of his dreams. He served as the Republic of China’s provisional president in 1912, but soon found himself exiled again, banished by the usurper Yuan Shikai and his military dictatorship. Sun spent years planning a comeback, first against Yuan and then against the disastrous warlord regimes that followed. Sun’s semi-exiled life in the French quarter in Shanghai and mounting failures vis-à-vis warlord regimes, however, dimmed his international reputation. Newspapers and foreign ministry documents alike portrayed Sun as a fallen figure. Nevertheless, these years in the wilderness drove Sun to carefully rethink China’s state-building challenges. He wrote extensively, meticulously planning China’s future political and economic development. Moving to Guangzhou at the invitation of reformist warlord Chen Jiongming, Sun tried to build a movement that could unify China. Chen, however, preferred provincial development over national unification and drove Sun from Guangzhou, Desperate, Sun opened negotiations with Soviet agents in 1923. Mercenary troops helped Sun regain a foothold in Guangzhou, whereupon Soviet advisors and Chinese communists alike helped him launch another revolution. Accounts from the period painted Sun as a leftist radical or “Bolshevik.” Criticisms haunted Sun until his death from liver cancer in 1925.


2000 ◽  
Vol 162 ◽  
pp. 387-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Chao ◽  
Ramon H. Myers

In October 1952, while addressing the Seventh Congress of the Kuomintang (KMT), the party chairman and president of the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan, Chiang Kai-shek, reminded his audience that “Sun Yat-sen's highest goal was to build a political system in which sovereignty resided with the people [zuchuan zaimin]” Chiang then said that “in order to oppose communism and recover our nation, the primary task of our party is to carry out local elections, build our nation's political system, and establish the solid foundations for our people to practise democracy.”


2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 252-271
Author(s):  
Madoka Fukuda

AbstractThis article examines the substance and modification of the “One-China” principle, which the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) pursued in the mid 1960s. Under this principle, a country wishing to establish diplomatic relations with the PRC was required first to break off such relations with the Republic of China (ROC). In 1964 the PRC established diplomatic relations with France. This was its first ambassadorial exchange with a Western government. The PRC, in the negotiations over the establishment of diplomatic relations, attempted to achieve some consensus with France on the matter of “One-China”. The PRC, nevertheless, had to abandon these attempts, even though it demanded fewer conditions of France than of the United States (USA), Japan and other Western countries in the 1970s. The PRC had demanded adherence to the “One-China” principle since 1949. France, however, refused to accept this condition. Nevertheless, the PRC established diplomatic relations with France before the latter broke off relations with the ROC. Subsequently, the PRC abandoned the same condition in negotiations with the African governments of the Republic of Congo, Central Africa, Dahomey and Mauritania. After the negotiations with France, the PRC began to insist that the joint communiqué on the establishment of diplomatic relations should clearly state that “the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China”. However, France refused to insert these words into the communiqué. Afterwards, the PRC nevertheless insisted on putting such a statement into the joint communiqués or exchanges of notes on the establishment of diplomatic relations with the African countries mentioned above. This was done in order to set precedents for making countries accede to the “One-China” principle. The “One-China” principle was, thus, gradually formed in the process of the negotiation and bargaining between the PRC and other governments.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document