Bizarre TT editorial

Politics Taiwan Politics
1

Today’s TT editorial seemed to be attempting to redefine China’s one China policy into a One Chinese Culture policy–sort of like the way CSB tried to sell his new constitution as ‘constitutional engineering.’ But this was really weird even by TT standards:

[quote=“TT”] The most difficult thing is to explain the difference between “China” (中國) and “Chunghua” (中華) to others, because no specific word in any dictionary explains the term “Chunghua.” No matter how it is sought, one can only find the words “China” and “Chinese” – which are related to the Han (漢) ethnic group. However, to the people of Taiwan, the words “China” and “Chinese” are unable to clarify today’s complex political, historical, and cultural relations between Taiwan and China.

Literally, the word “China” refers to national identity, while the term “Chunghua” refers to the historical and cultural identity of the Han ethnic group. For example, Taiwanese themselves do not refer to “Chinese food,” and instead refer to the full range of Chinese cuisines as “Chunghua cuisine” (中華料理), because “Chunghua cuisine” has a wider scope and deeper meaning.[/quote]

I’ve argued elsewhere on Forumosa that the ‘Zhongguo’ refers to a political entity–the People’s Republic of China and is also a modern invention. But why can’t ‘Zhonghua’ just mean ‘Chinese’ as in ‘Chinese culture.’ Or perhaps something like ‘sinitic’. There is nothing that subtle here at all, but what the writer is doing is using a trope that I would call something like the ‘there are subtle differences only accessible to Chinese speakers.’ A sure sign that you should discount anything that follow.

But the example of Zhonghua cuisine is just too forced to be believed – has anyone ever heard anyone use the term ‘Zhonghua liaoli’? I hear ‘zhongguocai’ all the time even from the most committed greens.

While I agree with many of the TT’s positions on Taiwanese identity, I believe they are doing a disservice to their own cause with this kind of nonsense. I’d even venture to say that the TT along with the Taiwan News have turned off more foreigners on TI than any other single source. I think we were better off in the days that the China Post could be relied on to make foreigners sympathize with Taiwanese identity simply by virtue of laughable propaganda. Now it’s the other way around.

2

Here is another editorial found in today’s TT. I’ll post this in full since it is very brief. :s

[quote]I think it’s well known that the Chinese government is subliminally fanning the flames of nationalism, not only with the Taiwan issue, but also encouraging hatred of the Japanese and foreigners in general.
Without the “mission” of uniting the motherland, there would be no reason to continue the myth of Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) communism, since all his other beliefs and policies have been proven to be unproductive, backwards and economically unsound.

In addition, if the Chicoms do not manipulate the focus of the sheeple [sic], the masses may finally get a backbone again (like in 1989) and complain about bigger, more important issues and cause real social instability and leadership change.

Ironic issue one: Taiwan is one of the key factors making it possible for China to do so well in attracting capital and technology. [The Taiwanese] not only invest in factories, equipment, technology transfers, supply chains, etc, but also spend a lot of time and money on educating the engineers and workers. What do they get in return? They get 706 missiles pointed at them.

Ironic issue two: It is amazing to see the Chinese being so gullible and blind to the true value of what Taiwan represents to them.

Instead of seeing Taiwan as a bright light in their future and something to strive toward (less corruption, more transparency in banking/investment/judiciary, relatively cleaner environment, leadership elected by the people, etc), all they see is the “more important” issue of reunification.

It seems that if they were smart, they would use Taiwan as an example to challenge their leaders that democracy will work in a Chinese society. They should demand nothing less from their government.

Ironic issue three: I think there would not even be a separation issue if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership would only give the Taiwanese some dignity and respect.

It seems that many Taiwanese feel deep down that they are part of a larger Chinese society.

Perhaps if China makes a gesture of friendship, such as removing the missiles and declaring that it would never use force, Taiwan can do something in return, such as giving back the national treasures (with the stipulation that one-third has to always be on display in Taiwan and will also be protected when the CCP finally loses power).

If only it were so easy. Obviously China has even bigger problems and issues to deal with. Securing energy resources stands out, which necessitates a strong military and a continual brainwashing of the people.

Marc Plumb
Taipei

[/quote]

3

Personally, I’ve always found the TI argument of an ROT based on minute differences between the Chinese on Taiwan and the Chinese on the Mainland to be somewhat bizzare.

Because the Chinese language reflects the fact current “Chinese” is made up of so many subgroups of Chinese, they hit upon these fundimental contradictions in language on the quest for a Nation State based on Taiwanese ethnic group.

The neo-Taiwanese indentity is inheritantly exclusive on Taiwan, which is why it doesn’t appeal to the moderates on Taiwan.

4

A very interesting detail of the “One China” theology is, what sort of entity is this “One China” that the PRC and Taiwan allegedly belong to, or ought to belong to?

A nation-state? If so, which one? Beijing often argues that the PRC is a sovereign nation-state, of which Taiwan is a mere province, but at other times stresses that Taiwan ought to become this. Does the first way relegate “China” to the realm of the metaphysical, as opposed to the political? (“ROC” language often veers this way.) But the second would recognize its current independence.

A cultural area? But other nations are not kind to territorial claims based on cultural considerations, even overlooking the presence of multiple cultures within these territories.

There probably should be another category for “states which are wrongly independent, at least for now.” (Think Trans-Dniestria.)

A lot of people throw out proposals involving words like “commonwealth” or “union” without stopping to spell out to what degree association therein would be voluntary.

5

[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]A very interesting detail of the “One China” theology is, what sort of entity is this “One China” that the PRC and Taiwan allegedly belong to, or ought to belong to?
[/quote]
I think you’ve coined a new word or collocation, there, Jesus. I’ve often thought of “One China” as China’s national religion, but these words never came to mind. I imagine I’ll be using this in the future. :bravo:

6

[quote=“Jive Turkey”][quote=“Screaming Jesus”]A very interesting detail of the “One China” theology is, what sort of entity is this “One China” that the PRC and Taiwan allegedly belong to, or ought to belong to?
[/quote]
I think you’ve coined a new word or collocation, there, Jesus. I’ve often thought of “One China” as China’s national religion, but these words never came to mind. I imagine I’ll be using this in the future. :bravo:[/quote]

Good, yes, but I think the “‘One China’ dogma” encapsulates it best.

7

[quote=“Omniloquacious”][quote=“Jive Turkey”][quote=“Screaming Jesus”]A very interesting detail of the “One China” theology is, what sort of entity is this “One China” that the PRC and Taiwan allegedly belong to, or ought to belong to?
[/quote]
I think you’ve coined a new word or collocation, there, Jesus. I’ve often thought of “One China” as China’s national religion, but these words never came to mind. I imagine I’ll be using this in the future. :bravo:[/quote]

Good, yes, but I think the “‘One China’ dogma” encapsulates it best.[/quote]

TI has a much stronger theological component than “One China” could ever have. Heck, it even enjoyed Presbyterian support, so the same sort of religious mentality easily crossed into politics.

8

I mean the differences are imagined in this case. In general, differences are not imagined.