|摘要: || 本文以日治時期南部菸草菸草移民村之千歲村—－中園、川北以及下平聚落之二十二戶為研究對象。在日治時期，台灣總督府在為鞏固台灣的統治，抒解日本國內壓力以及為將來往南洋發展預作準備之考量下，將移植日本農民至台灣視為主要政策之一。而在1930年代所建立的第二次官營移民中，於現今屏東縣所設立的菸草移民村在官營移民中是很特別的存在，原因在於南部菸草移民村自設立之初即以菸草專作為特色，不管在房舍建立、田地規劃等均以菸草種植為目的來進行興建。除此之外，移民村除了領受來自於總督府的補助外，更有來自專賣局的大力支援，也因此可看出南部菸草移民村的特殊地位。|
This context takes Chitose village - Nakazono, Kawakita, and twenty-two families of Shimodaira - as researching objects, and those families were in the Emigrant Village of Tabacco Industry during Japanese governance period. In the Japanese governance age, Taiwan Governor-General Office lets Japanese farmers move into Taiwan in order to release Japan’s domestic pressure and consolidate the dominion over Taiwan. Besides, Japanese immigrant farmers will be the main policy for Japanese government to have powerful influence in South Asia. In 1930, the second batch of immigrants lived in the government camp which was built in the Emigrant Village of Tobacco Industry in Ping Tung County. The Emigrant Village of Tobacco Industry has its special position in history for the cottages and farms were built to coordinate with cultivating tobacco. In addition, immigrants not only receive the supply from Taiwan Governor-General Office but also the support of Exclusive Trade Bureau.
After WWII, the Japanese immigrants were sent back to Japan. The remained land and house were taken over by Taiwanese. Most Taiwanese immigrant inhabitants were from Tu-Ku village, San-Bu village, and Mi-Li village. The Taiwanese inhabitants still cultivated tobacco at first and created the tobacco golden age in 1970’s. However, Taiwan Province Tobacco & Wine Government Monopoly Bureau offered different policies and changed the form with the decadence of tobacco industry. After farmers gave up cultivating tobacco, the local scene was changed a lot for some cultural assets like old tobacco buildings were disappeared soon.
After sixty years of World War II, Taiwan experiences curfew lifting and community reconstruction. Awakening the local consciousness and establishing the Cultural Heritage Preservation Law did not benefit the preservation of cultural assets. Thus, this paper will try to figure out the reason why the local assets cannot be preserved, and I would like to discuss the situation through community, school, and policy.