Comments made by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) and Wang Wei-chien (王偉建), father of Taiwan men’s doubles badminton gold medalist Wang Chi-lin (王齊麟), have reinvigorated the debate over what it means to be a nation.
On this page, Hung Yu-jui (洪昱睿) questions the inclusion of the phrase “Yanhuang shizhou” (炎黃世胄, “descendants of the Yan Emperor (炎帝) and the Yellow Emperor (黃帝)” in the National Flag Anthem.
Hung believes that reference to this phrase in the anthem is problematic.
Weng invoked the idea that all Chinese are descended from the Yan and Huang emperors, saying that Wang’s Olympic victory was the “pride of the Chinese people,” and that by extension Taiwanese are part of a Chinese nation with the Yan and Huang emperors as common ancestors.
Wang said that his son’s Olympic victory allowed the world to see the glory of the “descendants of the Yan and Huang emperors.”
Behind this lies a preoccupation with the concept of a common ancestry and of belonging to one “nation.”
Hung refers to research by Taiwanese hematologist Marie Lin (林媽利) indicating that most Taiwanese carry the genes of indigenous people, saying that this disproves a common ancestry with Han Chinese living in China.
It is easy to refute whatever position anyone seeks to take on this issue, due to its complexity and a failure to properly define what is meant by “nation” or the word “Chinese” in both English and Mandarin.
People might make comparisons with other countries, saying that the population of the US shares ancestry with peoples from all over the world, and yet US nationalism involves no other country.
English nationalism is not the same as identification with the UK, and the West owes its cultural foundations to ancient Greece, but does not share nationalist affiliation to Greece today.
These comparisons are wide of the mark, in any case, because Asian cultures tend to ascribe more importance to ancestry than Western ones do.
The Cambridge dictionary defines a nation as “a country, especially when thought of as a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions,” but also as “ a large group of people of the same race who share the same language, traditions, and history, but who might not all live in one area.”
Merriam-Webster defines nation as “a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government.”
Which of these definitions apply to Taiwan?
When Weng says: “We are Chinese... No matter who wins, Team Taiwan or the team from ‘mainland China,’ it is still the pride of all Chinese people,” what does she mean by “Chinese”? Is she talking about ethnicity? Can this ethnicity trace its way back to Neolithic China in any meaningful way? Is she talking about the population of China? Or a group of ethnicities with a shared culture?
While the blood and ancestral bond is strong in Asia, one could use the same logic to argue that modern Taiwanese are as related to indigenous Austronesian ethnic groups as they are to Han Chinese. That is using the ethnic definition of nation.
Taiwan is also distinct from China when using
Merriam-Webster’s definition of the nation as a defined territory containing different ethnic groups.
Weng would like to define “nation” as one with a shared ancestry, irrespective of territory or government. In the final analysis, it is up to Taiwanese how they define themselves as a nation.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS