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.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS