Neocolonial nostalgia obscures Taiwan’s contested heritage: How retro trends erase postcolonial memory and who benefits from this framing
Original framing: “Lantern festival host city showcases Taiwan-Japan history and culture” — The Japan Times
The original framing omits the violent history of Japanese colonial rule, including forced assimilation, labor conscription, and the suppression of Taiwanese languages and traditions. It also ignores the postcolonial erasure of Indigenous Taiwanese (e.g., the Austronesian peoples) under both Japanese and Kuomintang rule, as well as the marginalized perspectives of Taiwanese laborers and rural communities affected by heritage gentrification. Additionally, it fails to address how the 'retro' trend is co-opted by real estate developers and state agencies to displace communities in the name of 'revitalization.'
Medium structural omission detected in mainstream coverage.
The narrative is produced by *The Japan Times*, a publication historically aligned with Japanese state and corporate interests, and it centers a Taiwanese-Japanese cultural exchange that aligns with Japan’s contemporary 'Cool Japan' and 'soft power' strategies. The framing obscures the power asymmetries in Taiwanese-Japanese relations, particularly the legacy of Japanese imperialism and the ongoing erasure of Indigenous Taiwanese voices in heritage discourse. It also serves the interests of Taiwanese urban elites and heritage preservation bureaucracies who benefit from a sanitized, marketable version of history.
The article entirely excludes the voices of Indigenous Taiwanese, who have long been sidelined in heritage discourse despite their ancestral ties to the land. It also ignores the perspectives of Taiwanese laborers and rural communities affected by gentrification, whose livelihoods are disrupted by 'retro' urban renewal projects. Additionally, the framing overlooks the experiences of Taiwanese comfort women and forced laborers during the Japanese colonial period, whose stories challenge the narrative of harmonious cultural exchange. Centering these voices would require a fundamental shift in how heritage is defined and preserved.
The article’s framing of Taiwan’s colonial-era heritage as a harmonious blend of Taiwanese and Japanese culture exemplifies how neocolonial nostalgia is weaponized to obscure structural violence and marginalize Indigenous and working-class voices.