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.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS