this post was submitted on 31 May 2026

24 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

1333 readers

123 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml

QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml

yogthos@lemmygrad.ml

Is Taiwan a settler colonial state? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 1 day ago by KalergiPlanner@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I remember when I was first learning about settler colonialism, I thought to myself: “Huh, this sounds like Taiwan and Israel” My instincts were correct on Israel, but I never looked too deeply into Taiwan. The fact that the Kuomintang displaced the Austronesian natives is a pretty strong indicator, but is Taiwan really a settler colonial state or are my intuitions wrong?

top 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Munrock@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 day ago

The whole South Coast of China was populated by ethnic groups known collectively as the Bai Yue, who were also Austronesian, and they were governed and gradually assimilated or displaced by Chinese Dynasties. I'm 90% sure that the Austronesians on Taiwan were Bai Yue or had very similar experience to them, just later.

If Taiwan is a settler colony, then most of Hainan, Guangdong and Guangxi are as well, and the coast of Jiangsu, and I'm not sure how accurate it is to call them that. Every part of China was settler-colonised by some other part of China at some point if the definition is wide enough.

Taiwan's relationship with imperialism is defined more by their post civil war political alignment than earlier migration.

[–] pyromaiden@lemmygrad.ml 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes. The island was colonized by previous Chinese dynasties and there's a clear imbalance between the indigenous Taiwanese and the Han settlers that currently rule the island. I hope that when reunification finally happens this damage can be undone. While not perfect the CPC has shown a willingness to bolster regional identities and allow for their cultures to really flourish. Seeing the indigenous Taiwanese get that same treatment would be really cool.

[–] KrupskayaPraxis@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 1 day ago

I think that under reunification the indigenous Taiwanese could get their own autonomous prefectures, just like other ethnicities in the PRC

[–] opiumfree@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

yes it is. it didnt start with the kuomintang party, i think it started in the 17th century.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 1 day ago

In a very restricted sense, yes. Back then only a few areas were to be settled to have a foot in the door should another pirate king/queen or rebel army set up shop, again, on the island. And to keep western powers out who tried to use it as defensable colony next to China. You see, Macau was aonly allowed because it was a strip of land seperated by a wall. Should the protuguese piss of China the colony would be impossible to hold and burned down within hours after the incident. No such luck with colonies on Taiwan.

[+] Bronstein_Tardigrade@lemmygrad.ml -7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Isn't every modern state a settler colony? Might be a few Pacific Island nations that were created by the indigenous population, and perhaps Mongolia, but most states are built upon the bones of the native populations that lived there.

[–] KalergiPlanner@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's just not true man

Is Netherlands a settler colony? Is Malaysia a settler colony? Is Korea a settler colony? Is Mozambique a settler colony? Is India a settler colony? I could go on

[–] Munrock@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Malaysia absolutely is if Taiwan is. And I'm pretty sure there were Celtics or Picts in the Netherlands before Germanic/Frankish tribes moved in.

[–] KalergiPlanner@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 16 hours ago

"I’m pretty sure there were Celtics or Picts in the Netherlands before Germanic/Frankish tribes" I think we might just have a completely different view of settler colonialism here if you think settler colonialism predated capitalism. Settler colonialism is not mere demographic change though settler colonialism always leads to demographic change, thinking that can lead to some dangerous conclusions.

Malaysia was a bad example, so my bad on that. I think I need to study that topic further. I was under the impression that though it does have internal settler colonies, it as a whole isn't a settler colony, but the comment below makes me think twice on that.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Several of the countries you mentioned are funnily enough settler colonies. However, while I wouldn't agree that every modern state is the product of settler colonialism, which is a very specific realization of colonial efforts; the vast majority of modern states are the product of a continuous process of disparate groups displacing, integrating, overwhelming other peoples.

Malaysia has a storied history of exploiting, enslaving, and subjugating the native Negrito and Orang Asli peoples, who were displaced in favour of Indian and Indonesian Muslim settlers who became the Malay. The vast majority of these groups were eventually integrated into Malay society or fled into the hinterland, to the point that only 0.7% of the Malay peninsula is indigenous.

Orang Asli and Orang Asal land is frequently stolen from various tribes, and the indigenous peoples are largely considered second class citizens. Malaysia is absolutely a settler colonial state, its colonization is simply lesser known as the efforts are ongoing for centuries.

The Netherlands is an interesting case as there were simply no people present to colonize, as Roman brutality, various natural disasters and local climate change caused many of the region's original inhabitants to abandon large swathes of the modern Netherlands. Then, major resettlement efforts didn't begin until after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Korea, much like Greece, is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet so Korea and Greece would largely be the only two modern states that didn't really have colonial histories that defined their nations since they are largely indigenous nations.

Mozambique was largely the creation of European powers as prior to the Portuguese arrival and consolidation, the area worked as a loose confederation of autonomous cities and ports ruled by Arab sultans. The state is a product of colonial efforts by the Arabs and Europeans.

India also absolutely engages in settler colonialism, and Kashmir is in all but name an internal settler colony.

[–] KalergiPlanner@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm well aware that India and Malaysia (as well as many many other countries) have oppressed nations under them, I'm just making the claim that they aren't Settler Colonies themselves. Like Indonesia has settlers on West Papua, but Indonesia isn't a settler colony itself even despite its transmigration program. Please don't take this as me downplaying the oppression of oppressed nations, not my intention at all. Settler Colonies are a specific thing.

That point about Mozambique is moot, the creation of the nation is the result of colonial efforts and the reaction to it but the people are most certainly indigenous making it not a settler colony.

Its not true that 0.7% of Malaysia's population is native. 70% of the Malaysian population are Bumiputera ("natives"), though its good to keep in mind that Indonesians ethnicities are also counted as Bumiputera in the form of Anak Dagang. Anak Jati ethnic Malays though are most certainly native to the peninsula and have been there for a long time, though I can't get a good figure of their numbers since they're lumped in with Anak Dagang as ethnic Malays, they aren't a small part of the Malaysian population and do outnumber Anak Dagang Malays. Anak Jati also aren't just a product of shipping Indonesians and Indians to Malaysia in colonial times. Indians aren't even counted as Bumiputera. Orang Asli are indeed an oppressed group which has their indigenous lands taken, and I don't mean to downplay that.

As for India, Kashmir is a settler colony, but India as a whole isn't.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Bumiputera is a largely meaningless term since foreign Malays are included in the number, and Malay is also a meaningless term itself for determining indigeneity as someone is considered constitutionally Malay if they are, "Born to a Malaysian citizen who professes to be a Muslim, habitually speaks the Malay language, adheres to Malay customs, and is domiciled in Malaysia, Singapore or Brunei".

That also ignores the history that all "Malays" were settlers except for the Negritos and Orang Asli who were displaced and enslaved. Just because the settler colonialism happened centuries ago doesn't mean it didn't happen.