Taiwanese publisher Rye Field Publishing Co this month caused a stir in the book publishing industry. The History of Spicy Food, a book about the history of chili peppers in China, was recalled because the editors had used the Chinese word for “China” (zhongguo, 中國) in place of “continent” (dalu, 大陸).
This error led to absurd sentences such as “chili peppers were introduced to China thanks to Christopher Columbus’ discovery of the new China,” even though the author had written “new continent” in the original text. Other examples included the “Indian subcontinent” being replaced with “Indian sub-China.” The source of this mistake was that in Taiwan, the Chinese word dalu can mean either “continent” or “mainland,” or “mainland China.”
Although the result was amusing, it was nonetheless a significant editorial error. The incident highlights that language, ideology and national identity run deeper than the surface meanings of words.
In 1949, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) retreated to Taiwan after losing the Chinese Civil War, and harbored hopes to retake the “mainland” after they had regrouped on Taiwan. With this agenda in mind, the KMT gave China under Chinese Communist Party (CCP) control various names in different contexts, such as the “occupied/unfree area” of China and the “mainland China” area. However, as hopes of “retaking the mainland” dwindled, the KMT dropped these terms.
As per KMT ideology, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) used the term “one country, two areas” to define cross-strait relations when he assumed office. While the definition did not come as a surprise, it was deeply problematic, given that Ma said it was accurate under the framework of the Constitution.
Ma’s definition was not groundless. Article 11 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (憲法增修條文) says: “Rights and obligations between the people of the Chinese mainland area and those of the free area, and the disposition of other related affairs may be specified by law.”
The Constitution defines China as “the Chinese mainland area.”
Using Article 11 as the foundation, the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area” (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), which was adopted later, again defined China in this way: “The Mainland Area refers to the territory of the Republic of China outside the Taiwan Area.”
However, in light of present trends, the Constitution is increasingly out of touch with the times. Taiwanese have had a shift of national identity and now seek to shake off this anachronism. Increasing numbers of Taiwanese are shunning the term “mainland” to avoid being categorized in the “one China” context.
By abolishing such a politically loaded word as “mainland,” Taiwanese are using language to cut ties with China and distance themselves from the KMT’s pro-China ideology.
While some people criticize this shift as representing pro-independence supporters’ hostility toward China, with a dubious intent to “de-Sinicize” all texts, it is safe to say that it is simply a manifestation of a changing ideology and identity.
Taiwanese have the freedom to call their country whatever they like. Abolishing the term “mainland” should not affect that freedom.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS