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
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