题名

政治文化與民族政策之反思─論七腳川戰役之啟示

并列篇名

The Reflections between Political Culture and Ethnic Policies: Lessons from the Cikasuan Battle

DOI

10.29910/TJIS.200906.0001

作者

楊仁煌(Jen-Huang Yang)

关键词

民族自我中心主義 ; 七腳川戰役 ; 大港口戰役 ; 原住民族 ; ethnocentrism ; Cikasuan Battle ; Cepolang Battle ; Indigenous Peoples

期刊名称

台灣原住民族研究季刊

卷期/出版年月

2卷2期(2009 / 06 / 01)

页次

1 - 32

内容语文

繁體中文

中文摘要

緣以聯合國甫自2007年9月13日通過『原住民族權利宣言』,其內容共46條,明示各國政府應正視該宣言充分尊重各國境內之原住民族人權及各種相關權利之宗旨,掀起國內原住民族爭取基本人權之風潮,激凸自決、自治之積極行動與認知,呼籲任何一個國家不能干擾此普世人權價值。鑒於自古至今,殖民統治者的理番政策在治理上一直無法脫離殖民統治慣用的政治文化模式,到現今依然存有濃厚之民族自我中心主義色彩,無法包容多元文化觀,或有效落實尊重與認同差異文化之人權原則,像愚民、污名、奴化、剝削、邊緣化、無權、隔離、及殘暴、壓榨之現象到處可見。民族政策之制定不但無視差異,且執行時有偏差,甚或負有把關人權保障之責的相關公部門(如司法部門),根本無視文化差異造成之違反人權之判決,顯示公部門至今仍未脫離過去之權力傲慢、威權、欺民、施恩之殖民心態。爭取自治權、土地權、文化權、資源權、自決權、生命財產權等就是人權之內涵,是各民族本應有之人權,如殖民列強國之侵略事件,清朝的牡丹社、大港口、加禮宛等戰役。日治時期之七腳川、太魯閣等戰役。如司法事件,鄒族湯英伸、蜂蜜事件、司馬庫斯櫸木事件。又如史實見證人判成偽證人,司法單位無視原住民族基本法存在之事實,在在讓我們感覺國家對原住民族之政策仍未完全轉型。藉此,筆者試圖由七腳川戰役之啟示,反思政治文化與民族政策之關係。

英文摘要

In the past, the colonial rulers had used a political culture approach in governing Taiwan’s Indigenous Peoples. The legacy of this approach is ethnocentrism, which impede people to embrace multi-culture and respect the cultural differences. The consequences are obscurantism, stigmatization, slavery, exploitation, marginalization, powerless, segregation, cruelness, and oppression. Moreover, the making of ethnic policies is difference-blind, which has resulted in improper law enforcement and the neglect of human rights protection, causing numerous unjust judicial decisions. Throughout the history, many human right violations had occurred, including the Mudan Incident, the Cepolang Battle, the Kaliyawan Battle, the Cikasuan Battle, the Taloko Battle, the Tang Yin-shen case, the Bee case, and the Smangus Zelkova case. In fact, the government has not formulated an adequate aboriginal policy. Hence, the author will use the Cikasuan Battle as an example to review the relationship between political culture and aboriginal policy.

主题分类 人文學 > 人類學及族群研究
参考文献
  1. D'Errico, Peter. 1997. “American Indian Sovereignty: Now You See It, Now You Don't. ” (http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html) (2009/1/25)
  2. Daes, Erica-Irene A. 1993. “Explanatory Note Concerning the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/26/Add.1, 19 July..
  3. Morris, Glenn T. n. d. “International Law and politics toward A Right to Self-Determination for Indigenous Peoples.” (http://www.halcyon.com/pub/FWDP/International/int.txt) (2009/1/20)
  4. Ahrén, Mattias(2004).Indigenous Peoples' Culture, Customs, and Traditions and Customary Law: The Saami Peoples' Perspective.Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law,21(1),63-75.
  5. Davis, Sue(1986).Federalism and Property Rights: An Examination of Justice Rehnquist's Legal Positivism.Political Research Quarterly,39(2),250-64.
  6. Forrest, Scott(2006).Indigenous Self-Determination in Finland: A Case Study in Normative Change.Polar Record,42(3),229-38.
  7. Hannum, Hurst(1996).Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights.Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
  8. Kymlicka, Will,Norman, Wayne(2000).Multinational Democracies.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
  9. Tully, James(1995).Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
  10. Wang, Tay-sheng(2000).Legal Reform in Taiwan under Japanese Colonial Rule (1895-1945): The Reception of Western Law.Seattle:University of Washington Press.
  11. Williams, Robert A., Jr.(1983).The Medieval and Renaissance Origins of the Status of the American Indian in Western Legal Thought.Southern California Law Review,57(1),1-99.
  12. Young, Iris Marion(1990).Justice and the Politics of Deference.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
  13. 王泰升(2007)。台灣的法律繼受經驗及其啟示。中研院法學期刊,創刊號,111-36。
  14. 台灣總督府警察署編、陳金田譯(1997)。日治時期原住民行政志稿。南投:台灣省文獻會。
  15. 林素珍(2007)。七腳川(Cikasuan)人歷史意識之探討─以日治時期七腳川事件為例。台灣原住民研究論叢,2,118-30。
  16. 施正鋒(2006)。各國憲法中的原住民族條款。國中有國─憲法原住民族專章學術研討會,台北:
  17. 施正鋒(2000)。國際潮流與原住民族的權利。政策月刊,58,2-8。
  18. 楊仁煌(2004)。台北,台灣師大政治研究所。
  19. 蔡志偉(2008)。「聯合國原住民族權利宣言」國內法化的實踐可能。全球化與行政治理國際研討會,蘆竹:
  20. 駱香林(1957)。花蓮縣誌。花蓮:花蓮縣文獻委員會。
  21. 駱香林(1957)。花蓮縣誌。花蓮:花蓮縣文獻委員會。
  22. 藤崎濟之助(1930)。台灣の蕃族。台北:南天出版社。
被引用次数
  1. (2011)。幽微的抵抗:馬太鞍原住民食物系統的變遷。臺灣人類學刊,9(1),99-146。
  2. (2012)。原住民社會工作實務的文化取向─以服務學習內涵導入團體工作方法為例。社區發展季刊,140,207-222。