Question one
Tonio Andrade article focusses on the integrity of Koxinga’s conquest of Taiwan. Tonio argues on the method Koxinga used to drive the Dutch out of Taiwan and eventually reclaim it for China. Several historians portray Koxinga as a supernatural being who deserves a standing ovation or some worship simply because he was able to conquer the Dutch. Hence Andrade’s main argument is refuting the much-decorated Koxinga and rating Koxinga for who his actions portrayed him to be. While Koxinga’s purpose of reclaiming Taiwan and redeeming the Chinese from the Brutal Dutch was an excellent idea, his conquest was bloody which made little or no difference between his revolution and the rule of the Dutch. His conquest disrupted the co-existence of several racial groups such as Asians, Africans, Fujianese, and Dutch (Andrade, 2012, p.125). Moreover, Koxinga’s invasion was misguided which created tension between the people living in Taiwan and people living in China. By far and wide, Andrade strongly disagrees with how Historians have praised Koxinga and his partner He Bin.
In this article, Andrade uses credible sources to support his argument. To begin with, Andrade relied on Chinese and Dutch sources to prove his argument. The Sinophone Historians works describe the relationship which existed between the Zheng family and the Dutch. Zheng Zhilong, Koxinga’s father, established a peaceful and mutual relationship between the Dutch and himself. They all enjoyed lucrative trade and security until Koxinga disrupted the arrangement by invading the Dutch. Andrade uses the Sinophone records to show that Koxinga was, in fact, the pioneer of the invasion disrupting everyone who stood in his way including innocent immigrants. So, it makes no sense to idolize Koxinga as a legend for ending a war he started.
Second, the records of East India Company aided Andrade in making an informed opinion of the situation in Taiwan before the Dutch took it as its colony. The case was vile, since Taiwan was no Ideal. The too much violence which led to the death of thousands of Chinese immigrants came to an end after the Dutch took over. While the Dutch’s new rules were a depressingly average offer, all settlers were contented with the incentives, reasonable taxes and property ownership. Therefore, if the immigrants were content with what the Dutch offered, Koxinga’s intrusion was uncalled. If it is anything to go by, Koxinga should have been held accountable for the mass death of people during his attack. His esteemed titles are not rightly deserved.
Lastly, the works of Emma Jinhua Teng refutes arguments that Taiwan was part and parcel of China. While it agreeable between most historians that Penghu was a Chinese’s jurisdiction, it is not the case with Taiwan. Therefore, Andrade uses Emma’s work to mention that if Taiwan was not under the authority of Chinese, then Koxinga had no reason to fight to reclaim it. His invasion was self-centered and was purposed to earn him the current glory.
Question 3
Tonio Andrade’s argument is in contrast with the previous analysis. First, he refutes the idea that the Chinese in Taiwan were relieved at Koxinga’s arrival, while letters between Fujianese and Chinese residents of Taiwan urging their families to flee Taiwan disagree with the real situation. High taxes characterized his administration compared to taxes paid during the Dutch regime. Also, his soldiers were brutal; they intimidated the farmers, demanded farmers’ hard-earned money, and killed and raped the settlers. In his defense, Koxinga thought the sacrifice was worth the eventual restoration of the Ming dynasty. Nonetheless, Andrade analysis proves that Koxinga’s arrival was not met with awe as earlier suggested; instead, most settlers fled in fear of what was yet to come.
Second, Historians label He Bin as a state hero, a loyalist among other rosy descriptions which in reality are not befitting. He Bin was a wealthy merchant who had earned favor in the eyes of the Dutch and most business people. They trusted him blindly and even invested in his real estates while at the background he was swindling their investments. Sources reveal that he was under arrest and tried for stealing money from the Dutch administration, secretly charging imports and exports, and collecting undisclosed levies from Chinese merchants and settlers. The fines cost made him bankrupt which prompted him to fled Taiwan.
Consequently, he joined hands with Koxinga and gave him paramount information which eased the Dutch Subjugation. He handed Koxinga the map of Taiwan and snitched on the number of Dutch soldiers which gave Koxinga more confidence to attack Taiwan. Hence, Andrade argues that his actions were not proof of patriotism to the Chinese; it was indisputable proof of his selfishness and disloyalty.
Question four
I could not agree more with Andrade’s arguments. An invasion whether it is in our benefit or not, people do not receive it calmly. Most inhabitants of a country pack their belongings and exit the country, and some men evacuate their wives and children to safe hideouts. An arrival similar to Koxinga’s is an anticipation of war, and it is not possible for the Taiwan inhabitants to rejoice over it. Besides, in almost all colonies, patriots had to fight to regain their freedom. While there were defectors who substantially contributed to the conquest of most settlements, history does not acclaim them as national heroes; they are merely traitors regardless of their contribution. So, I agree with Andrade that He Bin was not any different from current hypocrites who let out the secrets of a nation to enemies. Moreover, Koxinga’s and He Bin’s attack on the Dutch was not necessary considering the colonized inhabitants were not complaining and did not ask for help. Therefore, the decision to fight against the Dutch and conquer Taiwan was a move towards gaining fame and adulation from all generations, and it worked since people produced movies, cartoons, and books in their honor.
References.
Andrade, T., (2012). Koxinga’s conquest of Taiwan in global history: reflections on the occasion of the 350th anniversary. Journal of Late Imperial China, 2012, Vol 33, issue 1, 122-140.
http://muse.jhu.edu/article/480042