The name of two-time Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie is causing a stir in Taiwan. During a Ministry of Education news conference on Monday, the name of the Polish-born, naturalized French scientist was offered as an example of changes to the names of notable people appearing in textbooks as part of the 12-year curriculum revisions.
Curie is currently referred to as Madame Curie in textbooks. There have been suggestions that she be called by her full married name of Marie Curie, or by her maiden name Marie Sklodowska, to unshackle her from patriarchal notions of possessiveness.
The Polish representative office in Taipei said that textbooks in Europe use Maria Sklodowska-Curie.
The ministry has yet to provide clear guidelines on how Curie or other prominent people would be referred to in textbooks, but this has not prevented misinterpretations in the media or ridiculous assertions and mud-slinging by political candidates.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei city councilor candidate Chung Pei-chun (鍾沛君) said on Facebook that under the new guidelines parents would no longer be able to teach their children “Madame Curie.”
Using former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher as an example, Chung asked whether textbooks would refer to her as Margaret Hilda Roberts. She also mused about how the textbooks would refer to Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary.
New Power Party Taipei city councilor contender Lin Ying-meng (林穎孟) then asked whether Chung would be on the ballot as Mrs Wu, using her husband’s family name.
Make what you will of these spats, in a way they all point to the truth of the matter. Can we not concede that a person may go through life with many names and titles, some of which are left behind or replaced with others as their status changes? Or that there are pertinent factors, contingent on cultural or national background or contemporary conventions in other nations or periods, that our textbooks need to take into consideration?
To continue with Curie as the example: It is not unreasonable to use Maria Sklodowska in a biographical account of her life. Nor is it far-fetched to use the long form of Marie — or Maria — Sklodowska-Curie: She used her maiden name in her signature, and a museum in Poland devoted to her life is called the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Museum.
Once married, and having become a naturalized French citizen, Maria Sklodowska became Marie Curie. This is the phase of life in which she made the discoveries for which she became famous.
“Madame” was her married title in French. In terms of writing convention, it is absolutely permissible to refer to her as Madame Curie, or even just Curie, but only in a subsequent mention, after her full name is established.
Two generations ago, women in Taiwan would adopt their husband’s surname, but later it became optional for many. Nowadays, more women are choosing not to change their surname.
In Curie’s day, the norm was to take the husband’s surname. Referring to her now as Curie in no way subsumes her to her husband, nor does she need to be disassociated from her marriage to be lauded for her individual achievements.
There are many other aspects to this issue, but the point is that people go by many titles and names, and cultural and chronological differences are relevant. The curriculum should reflect that. If you do not believe the Taiwanese students can handle that complexity, then you probably will not expect them to receive a Nobel Prize anytime soon.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military