Through text analyses of the representative Taiwan general history works completed in the past one hundred years, the paper attempts to realize the transformations of the relative places between these two subjects of “the Taiwan’s indigenous people” and “the Taiwanese”. In the 1910s, following the culturalism Lien Heng imagined the indigenous people as fan, meaning the non-civilized people. Meanwhile, his discourses about fan only provided with a contrast of “the others”, in order to verify the boundaries of the “our group”, Han-Chinese. In the 1960s, Shih Ming regarded the indigenous people as an ethnic sub-group being parallel with the Han-Taiwanese. However, Shih still considered that the indigenous people are subjected to the Taiwanese, and that the subject of the indigenous people is gradually collapsing due to their marriages and assimilations with the Han people. In the 1970s, Lin Heng-tao, according to the KMT government’s assimilations policy, saw the indigenous people as a homogenous group comparing with the Chinese. Finally, even through recent historians almost adapt a multi-ethnic view, instead of Sino-centralism, when they write, most of them still think that “a pan-indigenous people” is only a part of the Taiwanese. As well, in order to construct “a Taiwanese community”, they also deny the possibility that the indigenous people whether a pan-indigenous group or distinctive tribes/sub-ethnicities could imagine themselves as independent “nations”. Meanwhile, a discourse analyzing that today most of the Han-Taiwanese Taiwanese and gives the Taiwanese a special character being distinct from the Chinese in blood. Therefore, the Han-Taiwanese appropriate the position of “a de facto Native Taiwanese”. As well, the definition of the Taiwanese society has transformed into a native, indigenous, and pluralistic society from a simple immigrant society. Conclusively, the contents of narrations, by these native Taiwanese historians, about the relations between the Han-Taiwanese and indigenous Taiwanese have changed form emphasizing the “exclusiveness” into the “homogeneousness” and through arguing this process they imagines a special “Taiwanese Nation”. Nevertheless, these exotic narrations about the indigenous Taiwanese de facto become a intelligent instrument utilized by the Taiwanese elites to achieve the imagining and building of the “Taiwanese Nation”.