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
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
RSS