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.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
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
RSS