Some academics recently demanded that when describing Hoklo, the term minnanyu (閩南語) should be avoided in favor of “Taiwanese” (台語). The reason was that min means “snake” and nan — Chinese for south — implies “barbarian.”
Both implications are obviously derogatory. The demand makes an interesting contrast to the comic strip used by the Ministry of Economic Affairs to explain the economic cooperation framework agreement with China, in which one of the characters is from Tainan and “speaks with a Taiwanese accent.” Will replacing the word minnan with the word “Taiwanese” really eliminate discrimination? And is language discrimination inherent in language itself, or is it created by deliberate manipulation?
Min does mean “snake,” but the question is if “snake” really is discriminatory. In some religions, snakes are seen as a sacred animal and are often worshipped as a totem, as can be seen in the beliefs of Taiwan’s Paiwan and Rukai Aborigines. Snakes are also highly praised in ancient Chinese mythology, in which they were deemed immortal. Some academics even think the dragon, so highly revered in China, was originally a snake. For example, Nuwa (女媧) and Fuxi (伏羲), the brother and sister that are the mythological creators of the Chinese people, are often portrayed as snakes.
I therefore don’t think that the character min is derogatory just because it contains the character chong (虫), an old Chinese word for a kind of poisonous snake. Many people believe that Chinese in the past named peoples in outlying areas after animals as a means of looking down on them, but I would be cautious of this interpretation. An increasing amount of research shows that the formation of these names may have had more to do with the totems and beliefs of these tribes rather than with a wish to liken them to animals.
As for the word nan, the traditional Chinese view sees the north as the political center, so “the south” implies a certain discriminatory attitude. We must not forget, however, that more often it is simply a direction or a location, in the same way Nanjing is named in relation to Beijing.
Both the Ming Dynasty and the government of Republican China used Nanjing as its capital, and they certainly would not have done so had nan been a derogatory term. In addition, The Book of Odes (詩經) contains the chapters The Odes of Zhou and the South (周南) and The Odes of Shao and the South (召南), but academics now think the word here referred to a musical instrument called the nan.
There are also examples in the Analects (論語) of a beautiful concubine named Nanzi (南子), and in the work of the ancient Chinese poet Tao Yuanming (陶淵明) the term “southern mountains,” implying a “retreat” and “leisurely.” I really can’t see how the word nan could be derogatory.
The question of whether the two components of the word minnan are derogatory thus depends on the intent of the user and the interpretation of the recipient. As a Taiwanese born and bred, I have always felt that the word minnan is a geographical name, and that discrimination is not inherent in the two words but a matter of ethnic prejudice created by a certain political ideology.
If we do not eradicate that kind of prejudice, it doesn’t matter what name we use. To clarify whether or not replacing the word minnan with the word “Taiwanese” in and of itself will eradicate this kind of prejudice, just take another look at the Ministry of Economic Affairs’ comic strip and you will have your answer.
Hsu Yu-fang is an associate professor and chairman of the Chinese Department at National Dong Hwa University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS