同治十三年（1874）日軍藉口侵犯台灣，促使清廷重新評估台灣的地位，及其統治策略。欽差大臣沈葆楨履台灣偵查，擬定新的治臺政策。新政策重視台灣經濟的開發，以增強台灣的整體實力，抵禦外力的入侵。並以｢開山撫番」作為開發台灣的途徑。由於開山撫番政策的推行，連帶的清廷的民族政策，亦進行相當重度的修正。
新的民族政策，以增設州縣、開發交通、及加速土著漢化為主要內容，設法使所有土著納入清帝國的版圖中。換言中，即強調清帝國主權的實行，即設法解決開發台灣後山地區，所引起的民族衝突。從政策比較的觀點論之，清廷前後的民駔政策，有相似亦有相異之處。就其相似點而言，即清廷所施行的主要手段，大致上相同，即可分為同化、攻擊、隔離三類。就其政策之不同點而言，最重要的差異，乃是態度上的改變，即由消極放任至積極主導。過去清廷視境內之少數民族為｢類藩屬」，給予較大之自治發展空間。然而自開山撫番政策實施後，則以積極主導的態度對待土著民族；換言之，即土著的自主權受到某種程度的約束。
比較清末在台灣與海南所實施的民族政策，至少可發現有幾點差異，最大的差異點是台灣的土著的政治影響力不如海南島的黎族。雖然黎族與台灣土著一樣，其內部的族系亦相當複雜；同樣屬於部落社會型態。但黎族內部甚至海南的影響力，遠比台灣土著為大。除非得到土官的支持，否則任何政策都難以推展。再者，海南開始實行新政的時間較晚、較短，且不如台灣般的受到重視，故其政策效果遠不如台灣。
從政策評估的觀點，清廷在治臺末期，確實有心想好好整頓台灣，故在政策擬定時，也較能重視民族間的衝突問題，並設法緩和民族間的緊張關係。然清廷在實施開山撫番政策時，過於偏重經濟開發，未能掌握台灣土著的實際情況，無法對症下藥，因此許多善意的安排（如推行教育、提供工作機會），不但不能達到既定的目標，解決民族間的緊張現象，反而造成更多的衝突。清末的民族政策模式，奠定台灣民族融合的基礎，也成為台灣日後民族政策的重要典範。雖然開山撫番過程中，發生許多衝突。清末的民族政策模式，奠定台灣民族融合的基礎，也成為台灣日後民族政策的重要典範。雖然開山撫番過程中，發生許多衝突。但在衝突的同時，台灣土著與漢人間的互動，一直持續著，彼此不斷的相互影響。但台灣土著的地位，也在此時開始急速下降。最後，在日治中期，台灣土著完全被納入現代國家體制中，不再具有獨立自主的權力。 / In the thirteen years of Tong-Chi (1874),an extraordinary event happened,which urged the Tsing dynasty to re-evaluate Taiwan's status and to exam the ruling policy toward Taiwan, that was the intrusion of Japan. The AdministratorPao-Jen Shen was sent to Taiwan and new ruling policies were made, which mainly focused on Taiwan's economics development in order to increase the solid power ofTaiwna to against the intrusion. these actions were regarded as the strategyies forthe pathway of developing Taiwan. by the implementation of the new policies, theTsingi dynasty's nationalism was mended to some degree. The new Nationalism policies mainly focused on the following aspects: districtsincreasing, transportation developing, sinicism acceleration. In other words, these were the implementations of the Tsing's imperialism as well as the trialsof solving the national conflict which was raised to against the development of
the Taiwan's mountain area. From political comparison point of view, there slight change for Tsing's national politics. The similar parts were assimilation, attack, and segregation. The differences from political aspects, which was the most important part of all, were the change of attitudes from the passive leave along to aggressiveleading. In the past, the minor races were neglect by Tsing, and a wider rangesof autonomous development areas were given. however, after the policies were implemented, the attitudes changed to aggressive. In other word, the autonomy of aborigines were restricted to some degree.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:CHENGCHI/B2002002617 |
| Creators | 楊燿鴻, Yang, Yao-Hung |
| Publisher | 國立政治大學 |
| Source Sets | National Chengchi University Libraries |
| Language | 中文 |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Rights | Copyright © nccu library on behalf of the copyright holders |
Page generated in 0.0106 seconds