When the Kuomintang (KMT) assumed control of Taiwan after Japan’s defeat in 1945, the island entered a period of profound social, political, and cultural transition. After fifty years of Japanese colonial rule, Taiwan’s local population had developed administrative structures, education systems, and cultural practices that reflected a unique colonial experience. The KMT arrived with a vision of integrating Taiwan into a broader Chinese nationalist framework, but abrupt administrative changes, economic mismanagement, and cultural imposition created widespread discontent. This unrest culminated in the February 28 Incident (228 Incident) of 1947 and set the stage for the decades-long period of political repression known as the White Terror (Cheng, 2010; Tsai, 2009).

The February 28 Incident

The 228 Incident began on February 27, 1947, when a dispute between a tobacco monopoly agent and a local woman escalated into island-wide protests. Local Taiwanese grievances against the KMT were deep-rooted: rampant corruption among officials, heavy taxation, economic mismanagement, and preferential treatment of mainland Chinese administrators over local Taiwanese (Copper, 2016). Within days, protests erupted in major cities such as Taipei, Tainan, and Kaohsiung. The KMT responded by deploying troops from mainland China to suppress the unrest, resulting in mass killings and arrests. Estimates suggest that between 10,000 and 30,000 people were killed, including community leaders, intellectuals, and ordinary citizens (Tsai, 2009). The event not only devastated families but also created a pervasive climate of fear that extended far beyond 1947. The 228 Incident served as both a literal and symbolic starting point for the White Terror. It demonstrated the KMT’s willingness to use violence to consolidate authority and underscored the challenges of integrating Taiwan into a centralized nationalist framework while contending with local resistance.

The White Terror (1947–1987)

Following the 228 Incident, the KMT imposed martial law in 1949, initiating the White Terror — a period of political repression that lasted nearly four decades. The government sought to eliminate perceived threats to its authority, targeting Taiwanese intellectuals, local politicians, students, and activists suspected of disloyalty or pro-independence sentiments (Cheng, 2010).

Repression took multiple forms: Arrests and Imprisonment: Individuals suspected of dissent were detained without due process. Many were imprisoned for years, with sentences ranging from a few months to life. Executions: Political prisoners were often executed after summary trials or forced confessions. Some entire families were punished for the “crimes” of a single member. Surveillance: The government maintained extensive surveillance networks, encouraging neighbors and colleagues to report “suspicious” behavior. This fostered a culture of mistrust. Censorship: Media, publications, and public discourse were strictly monitored. Works deemed subversive or pro-local identity were banned, limiting avenues for political expression.

The White Terror was not uniform across Taiwan. Urban centers such as Taipei and Tainan experienced concentrated arrests among the intellectual elite, while rural areas faced more sporadic military campaigns and surveillance, particularly targeting Indigenous communities or areas previously under Japanese administrative influence (Rigger, 1999).

The impact of the White Terror varied geographically. In northern Taiwan, the KMT faced resistance from Taiwanese elites who had collaborated with the Japanese administration, often leading to targeted arrests and purges. Southern Taiwan, historically more agrarian and with higher Han Chinese settler populations, experienced localized repression, but large-scale executions were less common outside urban centers. In central Taiwan, Indigenous and rural communities were monitored for signs of unrest but often avoided mass purges, reflecting the KMT’s strategy of prioritizing regions with dense population and political influence (Copper, 2016).

This uneven implementation shaped local perceptions of the KMT. While urban elites remembered the White Terror as a period of direct threat and personal loss, rural communities often experienced its effects indirectly, through pervasive fear, restricted movement, and economic control. These regional differences contributed to a multi-layered collective memory of repression that still influences Taiwanese identity today.

One of the most enduring legacies of the White Terror was the culture of fear. Families learned to avoid political discussion, self-censorship became normative, and suspicion of neighbors increased. Public life became heavily regulated, and ordinary citizens internalized the threat of surveillance. Social interactions were constrained, and civic participation was limited, leaving the population wary of both the government and each other (Cheng, 2010).

KMT policies emphasized a singular Chinese nationalist identity, often at the expense of local Taiwanese culture and languages. Mandarin replaced Japanese and local dialects in schools, media, and government, and traditional practices were sometimes discouraged. Education became a tool for promoting loyalty to the central government rather than cultivating local knowledge or critical thinking (Rigger, 1999).

Schools were tightly controlled under KMT rule. Curricula emphasized Confucian values, Chinese history, and loyalty to the ROC, while topics related to Taiwan’s Japanese colonial experience or Indigenous history were largely omitted. Teachers and administrators were monitored, and students suspected of harboring pro-local or independent sentiments were punished. This approach produced generations educated in a framework designed to align with KMT ideology, while simultaneously suppressing local historical consciousness (Cheng, 2010).

The White Terror left lasting psychological and social trauma. Families of victims endured grief, economic hardship, and social stigma. Survivors often avoided public acknowledgment of past events, creating gaps in historical memory. Nonetheless, private oral histories preserved knowledge of repression and contributed to the emergence of a distinct Taiwanese consciousness once political liberalization occurred in the 1980s (Tsai, 2009).

Paradoxically, the White Terror helped forge a distinct Taiwanese identity. The experience of repression, coupled with linguistic and cultural imposition, highlighted the differences between local populations and KMT authorities. Communities maintained cultural practices, local languages, and historical narratives in private or semi-private spaces, creating a foundation for later movements toward democratization, local governance, and cultural preservation (Rigger, 1999).

By the 1980s, rising demands for political liberalization and recognition of Taiwan’s distinct experiences led to the lifting of martial law in 1987. The period following the White Terror allowed Taiwanese society to reflect on the trauma of repression and reclaim aspects of culture and identity that had been marginalized for decades.

The early years of KMT rule in Taiwan, particularly the 228 Incident and the subsequent White Terror, represent a period of intense political, social, and cultural upheaval. Repression reshaped local governance, education, media, and social norms, instilling a pervasive culture of fear while simultaneously marginalizing local languages and cultural practices. Yet, despite the trauma, these experiences contributed to the emergence of a distinct Taiwanese identity that endured through the decades of authoritarian rule. Understanding the White Terror is essential to comprehending Taiwan’s modern society: it illustrates both the power of state-imposed conformity and the resilience of local communities in preserving culture, memory, and identity under repression.

References

Cheng, T. J. (2010). Language policy and identity in Taiwan under the KMT. Routledge.

Copper, J. F. (2016). Taiwan: Nation-state or province? Routledge.

Rigger, S. (1999). Politics in Taiwan: Voting for democracy. Routledge.

Tsai, S. (2009). The February 28 Incident in Taiwan: Historical memory and reconciliation. Cambridge University Press.