關於 colonial period ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

#新刊出版 New release!!!​
​
Voices of Photography 攝影之聲​
Issue 30：美援視覺性──農復會影像專題​
U.S. Aid Visuality: The JCRR Issue​
​
本期我們重返影響台灣戰後發展至關重要的美援年代，尋索過往在台灣影像歷史視野中遺落、但卻十分關鍵的美援時期台灣視覺歷程──「農復會」的影像檔案。​
​
成立於1948年、以推行「三七五減租」和「耕者有其田」等土地改革與農業政策聞名的農復會（中國農村復興聯合委員會，JCRR），被認為是奠定二十世紀「台灣經驗」基礎的重要推手。然而很少人留意，這一農經專業的美援機構，在1950至60年代拍攝了大量的照片、幻燈、電影，並生產各種圖像、圖表、圖冊與海報，在冷戰年代與美援宣傳機制緊密連結，深深參與了戰後「台灣（視覺）經驗」的構成，影響著我們的視覺文化發展。​
​
冷戰與美援如何形塑台灣的影像與視覺感知？本期專題透過採集考察眾多第一手的農復會早期攝影檔案、底片、圖像、影片與文獻資料，揭載鮮為人知的美援年代視覺工作，追尋這一段逐漸隱沒的戰後台灣攝影與美援視覺性的重要經歷。​
​
其中，李威儀考掘農復會的歷史線索與視覺文本，探查美援的攝影檔案製程、「農復會攝影組」的成員蹤跡，以及文化冷戰期間從圖像、攝影到電影中的美援視覺路徑；蔡明諺分析1951年由農復會、美國經合分署與美國新聞處共同創辦的《豐年》半月刊，從語言、歌謠與漫畫等多元的視覺表現中，重新閱讀這份戰後最具代表性的台灣農村刊物潛在的意識形態構成與政治角力；楊子樵回看多部早期農教與政策宣傳影片，析論農復會在戰後台灣發展中的言說機制與感官部署，並從陳耀圻參與農復會出資拍攝的紀錄片計畫所採取的影音策略，一探冷戰時期「前衛」紀錄影像的可能形式；黃同弘訪查農復會在1950年代為進行土地與森林調查所展開的航空攝影，解析早期台灣航攝史的源起與美援關聯，揭開多張難得一見的戰後台灣地景航照檔案。​
​
此外，我們也尋訪生於日治時期、曾任農復會與《豐年》攝影師的楊基炘（1923-2005）的攝影檔案，首度開啟他封存逾半世紀、收藏農復會攝影底片與文件的軍用彈藥箱和相紙盒，呈現楊基炘於農復會工作期間的重要文獻，並收錄他拍攝於美援年代、從未公開的攝影遺作與文字，重新探看他稱為「時代膠囊」的視覺檔案，展現楊基炘攝影生涯更為多樣的面向，同時反思「美援攝影」複雜的歷史情愁。​
​
本期專欄中，李立鈞延續科學攝影的探討，從十九世紀末天文攝影的觀測技術，思考可見與不可見在認識論上的交互辨證；謝佩君關注影像的遠端傳輸技術史，檢視當代數位視覺政權中的權力、知識與美學機制。「攝影書製作現場」系列則由以珂羅版印刷著稱的日本「便利堂」印刷職人帶領，分享古典印刷傳承的工藝秘技。​
​
在本期呈現的大量影像檔案中，讀者將會發現關於美援攝影的經歷與台灣歷史中的各種視覺經驗，還有許多故事值得我們深入訪查。感謝讀者這十年來與《攝影之聲》同行，希望下個十年裡，我們繼續一起探索影像的世界。​
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿​
​
● 本期揭載未曾曝光的美援攝影工作底片、檔案與文件！​
​
購書 Order | https://vopbookshop.cashier.ecpay.com.tw/​
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿​
​
In this issue of VOP, we revisit the era of U.S. aid, a period that was of utmost importance to Taiwan’s post-war social and economic development, and explore Taiwan’s much forgotten but crucial visual journey during this era ── the visual archives of the JCRR.​
​
Established in 1948, the Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, or the JCRR, is widely known for the implementation of various land reform and agricultural policies, such as the “375 rent reduction” and “Land-to-the-tiller” programs. Hence, the Commission is considered an important cornerstone to laying the foundations of the “Taiwan Experience” in the 20th century. That said, very few are aware that this U.S. aid organization specializing in agricultural economics was also closely associated with the American propaganda mechanism during the Cold War, and had in its possession countless photos, slides and movies, and produced various images, charts, pamphlets and posters. All these contributed to the formation of the post-war “Taiwan (Visual) Experience”, deeply influencing the development of our visual culture.​
​
How exactly did the Cold War and U.S. aid shape Taiwan’s image and visual perception? This issue’s special feature uncovers the little-known visual activities from the U.S. aid era by investigating the collection of JCRR’s first-hand photo files, negatives, images, films and documents, and traces this important journey of post-war Taiwan photography and U.S. aid visuality that has gradually faded from people’s minds.​
​
Among them, Lee Wei-I examines the historical clues and visual texts of the JCRR, and explores the production of the U.S. aid photographic archives, following the traces of the members of the “JCRR Photography Unit” and the trails of U.S. aid visuals during the Cold War from images and photography to films. Tsai Ming-Yen analyzes the diverse visual manifestations, such as languages, ballads and comics, contained in the semimonthly publication Harvest, which was co-founded by the JCRR, the U.S. Economic Cooperation Administration, and the U.S. Information Service in 1951, presenting a new take on the ideological and political struggles that were hidden beneath the pages of this agricultural publication that could also be said to be the most representative publication of the post-war era. Yang Zi-Qiao looks back at the early agricultural education and propaganda films, and analyzes the discourse and sensory deployment utilized by the JCRR in the development of a post-war Taiwan and the possibilities of the “avant garde” documentary films from the Cold War period through the audio-visual strategies gleaned from director Chen Yao-Chi’s documentary project that was funded by the JCRR. At the same time, Houng Tung-Hung checks out the aerial photography taken by the JCRR in the 1950s for land and forest surveys, and uncovers the origins of Taiwan’s aerial photography with U.S. aid, giving readers a rare glimpse at post-War Taiwan’s aerial landscape photographic archives.​
​
In addition, we will explore the photographic archives of Yang Chih-Hsin (1923-2005), a former photographer who was born during the Japanese colonial period and worked for the JCRR and Harvest, unearthing negatives and documents kept away in the ammunition and photo-paper box that had stayed sealed for more than half a century. This feature presents important files of Yang during his time with JCRR, and photographs taken and written texts produced during the U.S. aid era but were never made public. We go through the visual archives enclosed in what he called a “time capsule”, shedding light on the diversity of his photography career, while reflecting on the complex historial sentiments towards “U.S. aid photography” at the same time.​
​
Lee Li-Chun continues the discussion on scientific photography in his column, exploring the interactive dialectics between the seen and the unseen through the observation technology of astrophotography in the late nineteenth century. Hsieh Pei-Chun focuses on the history of the technology behind remote transmission of visuals and examines the power, knowledge and aesthetics that underlies contemporary digital visual regime. Finally, this issue’s “Photobook Making Case Study” is led by the printing experts at Japan’s Benrido, a workshop that is renowned for its mastery of the collotype printing technique.​
​
Through the large collection of photographic archives presented in this issue, readers will see that there remain many stories on the photography process in the U.S. aid era and various types of visual experiences in Taiwan’s history that are waiting to be unearthed. We thank our readers for staying with VOP for the past decade and we look forward to another ten years of exploring the world of images with you.​
​
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿​
​
Voices of Photography 攝影之聲​
vopmagazine.com​
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿​
​
#美援 #農復會 #冷戰 #台灣 #攝影​
#USAID #JCRR #ColdWar ​
#Taiwan #photography
#攝影之聲 #影言社

More Treasure Hunt idea for you 💡💎 - One of the six Boundary Stone of the City of Victoria 維多利亞城界石, erected in 1903, to mark the limits of the City of Victoria, the first urban settlement in Hong Kong during British colonial period.

The City of Victoria was named after Queen Victoria in 1843, occupying present-day Central, Admiralty, Sheung Wan, Wan Chai, East Point, Shek Tong Tsui, the Mid-levels, the Peak, Happy Valley, Tin Hau, and Kennedy Town, on Hong Kong Island.

You can still see the name of the City of Victoria in some organizations in Hong Kong such as the Victoria City District of the Hong Kong Scout 香港童軍總會維多利亞城區.

Can you think of more places with the name - Victoria?

Where am I? Wong Nai Chung Road, Happy Valley (near St. Paul’s Primary Catholic School) 跑馬地黃泥涌道, 近聖保祿天主教小學

Where are the other boundary stones?
can be found on Bowen Road 寶雲道, Old Peak Road 舊山頂道, Pok Fu Lam Road 薄扶林道 and Victoria Road 域多利道, Hatton Road 克頓道.

#explorehongkong_history
#explorehongkong_HappyValley

#hk #hongkong #🇭🇰 #香港 #hktravel #hktraveller #hktravelbloggers #hongkongtravel #hktrip #香港旅遊 #香港旅行 #explorehongkong #discoverhongkong #hkstyle #travelgram #香港好去處 #travelasia #boundarystone #VictoriaCity #CityOfVictoria #維多利亞城界石 @ Happy Valley, Hong Kong

Jenna Cody :

Is Taiwan a real China?
No, and with the exception of a few intervening decades - here’s the part that’ll surprise you - it never has been.

This’ll blow your mind too: that it never has been doesn’t matter.

So let’s start with what doesn’t actually matter.

Until the 1600s, Taiwan was indigenous. Indigenous Taiwanese are not Chinese, they’re Austronesian. Then it was a Dutch colony (note: I do not say “it was Dutch”, I say it was a Dutch colony). Then it was taken over by Ming loyalists at the end of the Ming dynasty (the Ming loyalists were breakaways, not a part of the new Qing court. Any overlap in Ming rule and Ming loyalist conquest of Taiwan was so brief as to be inconsequential).

Only then, in the late 1600s, was it taken over by the Chinese (Qing). But here’s the thing, it was more like a colony of the Qing, treated as - to use Emma Teng’s wording in Taiwan’s Imagined Geography - a barrier or barricade keeping the ‘real’ Qing China safe. In fact, the Qing didn’t even want Taiwan at first, the emperor called it “a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization”. Prior to that, and to a great extent at that time, there was no concept on the part of China that Taiwan was Chinese, even though Chinese immigrants began moving to Taiwan under Dutch colonial rule (mostly encouraged by the Dutch, to work as laborers). When the Spanish landed in the north of Taiwan, it was the Dutch, not the Chinese, who kicked them out.

Under Qing colonial rule - and yes, I am choosing my words carefully - China only controlled the Western half of Taiwan. They didn’t even have maps for the eastern half. That’s how uninterested in it they were. I can’t say that the Qing controlled “Taiwan”, they only had power over part of it.

Note that the Qing were Manchu, which at the time of their conquest had not been a part of China: China itself essentially became a Manchu imperial holding, and Taiwan did as well, once they were convinced it was not a “ball of mud” but actually worth taking. Taiwan was not treated the same way as the rest of “Qing China”, and was not administered as a province until (I believe) 1887. So that’s around 200 years of Taiwan being a colony of the Qing.

What happened in the late 19th century to change China’s mind? Japan. A Japanese ship was shipwrecked in eastern Taiwan in the 1870s, and the crew was killed by hostile indigenous people in what is known as the Mudan Incident. A Japanese emissary mission went to China to inquire about what could be done, only to be told that China had no control there and if they went to eastern Taiwan, they did so at their own peril. China had not intended to imply that Taiwan wasn’t theirs, but they did. Japan - and other foreign powers, as France also attempted an invasion - were showing an interest in Taiwan, so China decided to cement its claim, started mapping the entire island, and made it a province.

So, I suppose for a decade or so Taiwan was a part of China. A China that no longer exists.

It remained a province until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan after the (first) Sino-Japanese War. Before that could happen, Taiwan declared itself a Republic, although it was essentially a Qing puppet state (though the history here is interesting - correspondence at the time indicates that the leaders of this ‘Republic of Taiwan’ considered themselves Chinese, and the tiger flag hints at this as well. However, the constitution was a very republican document, not something you’d expect to see in Qing-era China.) That lasted for less than a year, when the Japanese took it by force.

This is important for two reasons - the first is that some interpretations of IR theory state that when a colonial holding is released, it should revert to the state it was in before it was taken as a colony. In this case, that would actually be The Republic of Taiwan, not Qing-era China. Secondly, it puts to rest all notions that there was no Taiwan autonomy movement prior to 1947.

In any case, it would be impossible to revert to its previous state, as the government that controlled it - the Qing empire - no longer exists. The current government of China - the PRC - has never controlled it.

After the Japanese colonial era, there is a whole web of treaties and agreements that do not satisfactorily settle the status of Taiwan. None of them actually do so - those which explicitly state that Taiwan is to be given to the Republic of China (such as the Cairo declaration) are non-binding. Those that are binding do not settle the status of Taiwan (neither the treaty of San Francisco nor the Treaty of Taipei definitively say that Taiwan is a part of China, or even which China it is - the Treaty of Taipei sets out what nationality the Taiwanese are to be considered, but that doesn’t determine territorial claims). Treaty-wise, the status of Taiwan is “undetermined”.

Under more modern interpretations, what a state needs to be a state is…lessee…a contiguous territory, a government, a military, a currency…maybe I’m forgetting something, but Taiwan has all of it. For all intents and purposes it is independent already.

In fact, in the time when all of these agreements were made, the Allied powers weren’t as sure as you might have learned about what to do with Taiwan. They weren’t a big fan of Chiang Kai-shek, didn’t want it to go Communist, and discussed an Allied trusteeship (which would have led to independence) or backing local autonomy movements (which did exist). That it became what it did - “the ROC” but not China - was an accident (as Hsiao-ting Lin lays out in Accidental State).

In fact, the KMT knew this, and at the time the foreign minister (George Yeh) stated something to the effect that they were aware they were ‘squatters’ in Taiwan.

Since then, it’s true that the ROC claims to be the rightful government of Taiwan, however, that hardly matters when considering the future of Taiwan simply because they have no choice. To divest themselves of all such claims (and, presumably, change their name) would be considered by the PRC to be a declaration of formal independence. So that they have not done so is not a sign that they wish to retain the claim, merely that they wish to avoid a war.

It’s also true that most Taiwanese are ethnically “Han” (alongside indigenous and Hakka, although Hakka are, according to many, technically Han…but I don’t think that’s relevant here). But biology is not destiny: what ethnicity someone is shouldn’t determine what government they must be ruled by.

Through all of this, the Taiwanese have evolved their own culture, identity and sense of history. They are diverse in a way unique to Taiwan, having been a part of Austronesian and later Hoklo trade routes through Southeast Asia for millenia. Now, one in five (I’ve heard one in four, actually) Taiwanese children has a foreign parent. The Taiwanese language (which is not Mandarin - that’s a KMT transplant language forced on Taiwanese) is gaining popularity as people discover their history. Visiting Taiwan and China, it is clear where the cultural differences are, not least in terms of civic engagement. This morning, a group of legislators were removed after a weekend-long pro-labor hunger strike in front of the presidential palace. They were not arrested and will not be. Right now, a group of pro-labor protesters is lying down on the tracks at Taipei Main Station to protest the new labor law amendments.

This would never be allowed in China, but Taiwanese take it as a fiercely-guarded basic right.

*

Now, as I said, none of this matters.

What matters is self-determination. If you believe in democracy, you believe that every state (and Taiwan does fit the definition of a state) that wants to be democratic - that already is democratic and wishes to remain that way - has the right to self-determination. In fact, every nation does. You cannot be pro-democracy and also believe that it is acceptable to deprive people of this right, especially if they already have it.

Taiwan is already a democracy. That means it has the right to determine its own future. Period.

Even under the ROC, Taiwan was not allowed to determine its future. The KMT just arrived from China and claimed it. The Taiwanese were never asked if they consented. What do we call it when a foreign government arrives in land they had not previously governed and declares itself the legitimate governing power of that land without the consent of the local people? We call that colonialism.

Under this definition, the ROC can also be said to be a colonial power in Taiwan. They forced Mandarin - previously not a language native to Taiwan - onto the people, taught Chinese history, geography and culture, and insisted that the Taiwanese learn they were Chinese - not Taiwanese (and certainly not Japanese). This was forced on them. It was not chosen. Some, for awhile, swallowed it. Many didn’t. The independence movement only grew, and truly blossomed after democratization - something the Taiwanese fought for and won, not something handed to them by the KMT.

So what matters is what the Taiwanese want, not what the ROC is forced to claim. I cannot stress this enough - if you do not believe Taiwan has the right to this, you do not believe in democracy.

And poll after poll shows it: Taiwanese identify more as Taiwanese than Chinese (those who identify as both primarily identify as Taiwanese, just as I identify as American and Armenian, but primarily as American. Armenian is merely my ethnicity). They overwhelmingly support not unifying with China. The vast majority who support the status quo support one that leads to eventual de jure independence, not unification. The status quo is not - and cannot be - an endgame (if only because China has declared so, but also because it is untenable). Less than 10% want unification. Only a small number (a very small minority) would countenance unification in the future…even if China were to democratize.

The issue isn’t the incompatibility of the systems - it’s that the Taiwanese fundamentally do not see themselves as Chinese.

A change in China’s system won’t change that. It’s not an ethnic nationalism - there is no ethnic argument for Taiwan (or any nation - didn’t we learn in the 20th century what ethnicity-based nation-building leads to? Nothing good). It’s not a jingoistic or xenophobic nationalism - Taiwanese know that to be dangerous. It’s a nationalism based on shared identity, culture, history and civics. The healthiest kind of nationalism there is. Taiwan exists because the Taiwanese identify with it. Period.

There are debates about how long the status quo should go on, and what we should risk to insist on formal recognition. However, the question of whether or not to be Taiwan, not China…

…well, that’s already settled.

The Taiwanese have spoken and they are not Chinese.

Whatever y’all think about that doesn’t matter. That’s what they want, and if you believe in self-determination you will respect it.

If you don’t, good luck with your authoritarian nonsense, but Taiwan wants nothing to do with it.

Bánh mì (/ˈbæn ˌmiː/; Vietnamese pronunciation: [ɓǎɲ mî]) is a Vietnamese term for all kinds of bread. The word is derived from bánh (bread) and mì (wheat, also spelled mì in northern Vietnam). Bread, or more specifically the baguette, was introduced by the French during its colonial period. The bread most commonly found in Vietnam is a single-serving baguette, which is usually more airy than its Western counterpart, with a thinner crust.

The term bánh mì is also sometimes used as a synecdoche for a "Vietnamese sandwich".

In the Western Hemisphere, especially in areas with substantial Vietnamese expatriate communities, the term is used to refer to a type of meat-filled sandwich on bánh mì bread, found in Vietnamese bakeries. Unlike the traditional French baguette, the Vietnamese baguette is made with rice flour along with wheat flour.[2] Typical fillings include steamed, pan-roasted or oven-roasted seasoned pork belly, Vietnamese sausage, grilled pork, grilled pork patties, spreadable pork liver pâté, pork floss, grilled chicken, chicken floss, canned sardines in tomato sauce, soft pork meatballs in tomato sauce, head cheese, fried eggs, mock duck, and tofu. Accompanying vegetables typically include fresh cucumber slices, cilantro (leaves of the coriander plant) and pickled carrots and daikon in shredded form. Common condiments include spicy chili sauce, sliced chilis, mayonnaise, and cheese.

In the Vietnamese language, these sandwiches would be referred to as e.g. bánh mì xíu mại for a baguette with crushed pork meatball, bánh mì pâté chả thịt for a baguette or sandwich with pâté, Vietnamese sausage and meat, usually pork bellies, since it is the most common kind of meat. Almost all of these varieties are innovations made by or introduced in Saigon and they are known as bánh mì Sài Gòn ("Saigon-Style" banh mi); the most popular form is bánh mì thịt (thịt means "meat"). However, even in Vietnam, "a bánh mì for breakfast" implies a meat-filled sandwich for breakfast, not just bread.

The Vietnamese sandwich, sometimes called a "bánh mì sandwich", is a product of French colonialism in Indochina, combining ingredients from the French (baguettes, pâté, jalapeño, and mayonnaise) with native Vietnamese ingredients, such as cilantro, cucumber, and pickled carrots and daikon.

Bánh mì đặc biệt ("special combo" sandwich)
The classic version, bánh mì thịt nguội, sometimes known as bánh mì đặc biệt or "special combo", is made with various Vietnamese cold cuts, such as sliced pork or pork bellies, chả lụa (pork sausage), and head cheese, along with the liver pâté and vegetables like carrot or cucumbers.

Campus TV, HKUSU Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/hkucampustv

【社科論壇】

近年，社會矛盾不斷、民怨沸騰，人民求變心切，但抗爭光譜差別大，趨兩極化。從雨傘運動到近日的旺角衝突，我們都見識到因對政權不滿而抗爭的力量有多大，影響社會的程度多廣。有人認為有意見應該透過合法、和平、理性、非暴力的方法表達，以求社會秩序諧和；有人直斥港英時代留下來的「和理非」已經不合時宜亦不奏效，認為應該適當運用武力；更多人於這兩極游走，宣示中立。究竟香港該如何取決未來抗爭方向、走出困局？

於三月一日(星期二)下午十二時四十五分到二時正於香港大學中山廣場舉行論壇，論題為「香港未來抗爭方向」。嘉賓講者包括(排名不分前後)公民黨黨魁、立法會議員梁家傑先生、青年新政發言人黃俊傑先生 、電影《十年》－《自焚者》導演周冠威先生以及勇武前綫友好組織成員、UmbrA成員MJ先生。

【Social Sciences Society Forum】

Hong Kong is under great struggle and discontent in recent years. People are demanding for changes, but the spectrum of resistance is extending towards the two ends and heading to polarisation.

From the Umbrella Movement to the battle of Mongkok, we witnessed resistance source from the rotten authority and the failed governance of the existing government. It provoked our reflection over the future direction and possible ways of resistance for the betterment of Hong Kong.

Some claimed that we should accept the authority and express opinions with institutional means and there is not necessary for resistance. Some suggested that concerns should be raised in a peaceful, rational and non-violent manner while some proposed that such manner prohibited from the British colonial period has been outdated and more radical ways must be adopted from the past failed experience of Umbrella Movement and countless peaceful expressions. Where should Hong Kong station at the spectrum?

The Social Sciences Society, HKUSU is held a forum on 1st March, 2016, from 12:45 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. at Happy Park in HKU. The title of the forum is “Future Resistance Path of Hong Kong”. The guest speakers are (listed in no particular order) Alan Leong Kah-kit, leader of the Civic Party and the Legislative Council Member; Kenny Wong Chun-kit, Spokesperson of Youngspiration; Chow Kwun-wai, director of “Self Immolator” in “Ten Years”; Mr Mj, member of the friendship organization of Valiant Frontier and member of UmbrA.

Tucked away in the oldest neighbourhood, of the oldest city of Taiwan (Tainan) is this cozy cafe/bistro, located in a building that’s over 100 years old. Some of the furniture and decor are antiques from the Japanese colonial period. The paintings inside, as you’ll see in the video, are works of the owner. Back in the building is a Zenful lightwell. The price of a cup of their specialty - black sugar latte, is 150TWD, with free cookies included.

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/eateateat11/