Politically Loaded Terms: A Call for New Terminology

Tiresomely pedantic, but grammatically correct STG… That’s why the preferred terminology is “TI nutjob”… you’ll find it used very regularly here on Forumosa and also elsewhere…

excellent point SC… Since the TI nutjob version of the reality of the Taiwan straight situation is almost entirely built around fictional semantic posturing, this nomenclature does have a significant impact on the strength of the TI argument…

Personally I could care less if CSB and his thieving associates wanted to rename the ROC the “Undeniably Independent Republic of Taiwan” and PRC “The Nasty Evil Empire of Communist Bullies” while they’re at it they can rename the USA the “Dedicated Offshore Cavalry Division of the Supremely Noble UIROT”… Whilst this would please the linguistic pedants of the TI nutjob minority no end, it would not make even one iota’s difference to the pragmatic reality of the Taiwan/China situation…

The world is not being duped by the arbitrary semantic conveniences of the terminology used to refer to the parties involved, the world’s governments are meticulously aware of the situation that exists between Taiwan and China, but in the real world reality that encompasses the TI nutjob fantasy bubble of wishful thinking and rhetoric, nobody, not he USA or anyone else, cares enough about Taiwan or it’s valiant attempts at Democracy to burn their diplomatic and economic bridges with China, and that fact will continue to remain true regardless of any semantic storm in a teacup over what to call Taiwan and China… Regrettably for the people who live in Taiwan/UIROT while the DPP / TI movement falls over their semantic shoelaces for the umpteenth time, foaming at the mouth over this all but irrelevant terminology, the real world quietly gets on with business as usual…

I’m really tired of “ethnic division” being used to describe the differences between Han Chinese who came here in 1949 and those who came before 1949.

:bravo: Well said.

It’s so artificial - as if it’s searching for a distinction to divide people by.

I recently translated a student essay stating that Taiwan was divided into four “ethnic” or “racial” (種族) groups: Taiwanese, mainlanders, Hakkas and aborigines. I changed the word to “sociolinguistic” for lack of a better way to describe it at the time (but even that’s inaccurate because there are far more aboriginal languages than Chinese languages in Taiwan). It was pure BS but I had to get the job done.

Actually I think you are referring to the China Nationalist Party version. They are the ones that still keep up the ludicrous story that Taiwan is the ruler of all of China, Tibet, and Mongolia. No one believes their crazy stories that this is China. China Airlines, China Post, China Nationalist Party. Get over it…You lost the Civil war! Talk about fiction!!! Puhahaha…

AGREED!!! I think the problem is that no one can think of themselves as citizens of Taiwan. It has to be about blood. There are so many ethnicities in the United States, but everyone calls themselves Americans. Those guys that came here over 50 years still think of themselves as Chinese and want to be buried in China and still could not consider themselves from this country.

It’s all so simple for you, isn’t it Hobart!!!?

It doesn’t matter what Hobart had said or going to say. As a fugitive without a homeland to call on his own, his miserable attempt to divide the society with his small talk of ethnics and misnomers, will no doubt fall flat on his face. The real reality is not a deny whether reunification will happen, but when it will happen.

The force of reunification IS INEVITABLE to say the least.

Okay, I have a few more politically loaded terms.

“cross strait”
This one is long overdue for retirement. Without pension. Either that or we start using it to refer to every country in the world. But I think it sounds awkward when used of Anglo-French relations and American-Mexican relations. I know, how about “cross border”! Better yet, “international”!

“versus”
As in ROC “vs.” PRC, Taiwan “vs.” China, Queensland “vs.” New South Wales. Well, that last one is okay, but the term “versus” is just so, well, divisive. And as everyone has gone to great pains to point out, division is a bad thing. Why, oh why can’t we all just get along? And recognize that the earth is our common home? Okay, forget about that for the moment. And let’s forget about divisions and binarisms altogether - after all, they suggest a relationship, even if it is one based on animosity. Instead, just say Taiwanese like you would say Chinese or German or Japanese or what have you, and say Taiwan just like saying Japan or China or Germany. And when “ROC” is used, depending on context, substitute either “Taiwan” or “PRC,” then delete the word “province.” Let’s see how this works with our creative on-the-fly translation of ethereal rhetoric.

I’m not sure what to do about that last part. Hmm, let’s try another.

And according to my earlier suggestion for what to do with “unification”…

And who says you can’t have fun with TP?

Lets see. A new word to use for Taiwan Independence Supporters. If they are not fighting for Independence, since Taiwan is already independent, maybe they are fighting against Unification or against Communism. Maybe they should be renamed the Anti-Unificationists or the Anti-Communists.

By the way, anyone know when the Taiwan DuLi phrase was first used?

I am making a distinction between State and state that should not be confused. I will agree Taiwan is a state in terms that it is part of a larger entity ROC. ROC is a State depending on how one defines soveriegnty.

This is all part of the nomenclature game that TI has been using for quite some time. They assume the name Taiwan is interchangable with ROC, they usually argue that it causes less confusion and is more conventient.

However, that in it of itself causes the most confusion. Because the Province (state) of Taiwan is not a State (country), like ROC.

It would be like referring to Canada as Quebec, or the USA as New York.

So Hobart follows up with the next brainwashing TI misinformation. Once people are use to referring to Canada as Quebec, why not just declare Quebec independent. Even the most ardent Francophone would not engage in this arguement, since they already know nobody is that stupid.

This one is just begging for translation…

[quote=“translated ac_dropout”]I am making a distinction between State and state that should not be confused. I will agree Taiwan is a state in terms that it is part of a larger entity Taiwan. Taiwan is a State depending on how one defines soveriegnty.

This is all part of the nomenclature game that Taiwan has been using for quite some time. They assume the name Taiwan is interchangable with Taiwan, they usually argue that it causes less confusion and is more conventient.

However, that in it of itself causes the most confusion. Because Taiwan is not the PRC.

It would be like referring to Canada as Quebec, or the USA as New York.

So Hobart follows up with the next brainwashing Taiwan misinformation. Once people are use to referring to Canada as Quebec, why not just declare Quebec Taiwan. Even the most ardent Francophone would not engage in this arguement, since they already know nobody is that stupid.[/quote]

Okay, okay, I’ll stop. The rest is up to you. :wink:

And let us had to the UIROT the “We Don’t Recognize Anyone Except Ourselfs” that seems to shape the life of every foreign citizen in this country. It really surprises me that while there is no official recognition from most of the countries, there is at least recognition of the documentation approved by the MOFA, which is a lot more than the stupid and completelly absurb “go to our nearest office” approach by this government. Although I cannot say that it is fault of this government (I don’t know who was the moron who even thought about it), at least their are at fault for making the lives of foreigners here a lot harder.

I’m becoming a little more tolerant of soap opera fans.
" As the World (of Taiwanese Politics) Turns "
I’ve followed this meandering diatribe,
but I’m not buying anything.
Comrade tang scores for the circuitous plot line,
at best specious.
Air-Conditioned_airhead scores for simplistic reductionism,
at best puerile.

ccpcannnonfodder opts for obfuscation in place of articulation;
brilliance,
hidden wisdom?
bet on intellectual cowardice.

高山聞滾鼓…
不通, 不通, 不通

On a high mountain listening to drum rolling down…
dumb, dumb, dumb…

The “nation” referred to in “National Taiwan University” is the Republic of China. As its official web page says about the university, “After World War II and Taiwan’s retrocession to Chinese Sovereignty, the R.O.C. government resumed the administration of Taihoku University and reorganized and renamed it ‘‘National Taiwan University’’ on November 15, 1945, with Dr. Lo Tsung-lo serving as the first president.” There were even a bunch of “Provincial” colleges that merged into NTU. Maybe Hobart would like the most brilliant president from the most elite university to denounce his alma mater for this egregious offense to the sensibilities of the green vanguard?

Talking about these “politically loaded” terms, I start to think, well, who loaded them with politics? From NTU’s historical brief and such, all these terms Hobart has problems with were common terms. Why are they so painful for TI/ers these days? It’s clear that nobody else loaded these terms with contemporary politics but TI/ers themselves! The PRC politics toward Taiwan has been the same for decades. The US politics toward Taiwan has been the same for decades. Most TWese continue to be apolitical as far as usage of these terms are concerned. It is only TI politics that is new. There is nothing wrong with change. Conditions change, politics change, I understand that. But in the face of indignant complaints of people using “politically loaded” terms, let’s be very clear who changed, and by choice of their ideology, see politics in everything and everywhere.

Well, as you might imagine, even going to Harvard or MIT doesn’t make you good, depends on what you do inside and outside. How many harvardians are not the best kid in the block?

About terminology, instead of WSR and BSR, can we just call them “people”? “Human”? “ladies & gents”?

Please be advised that this thread’s topic is Politically Loaded Terms. Kindly stick to the topic.

[color=blue]Any postings dealing with CSB and his current political troubles should be posted in this thread:[/color]
[url]The CSB culpability (or not) thread

Thank you for you co-operation,
Respectfully,
Ginger
TP Forum Mod

A very relevant observation. My response to “But China is going to ‘liberate’ Taiwan tomorrow!!!” is usually “China hasn’t finished ‘liberating’ China yet!”

However, this wrangling over political terminology should be accompanied by effective administration of the country. Then it has meaning. It is mature and considered existential reflection. Without actually bothering to run the country, all this frankly communist-style “nomenklatura” is just an everlasting wankathon. From where I am standing, the CCP is watching with glee as Taiwan self-destructs, and the population shrugs and either relocates its business to China, or wonders if the CCP really could be any worse than this shower of tosspots that have been inflicted upon Taiwan since the 1940s.

They may indeed be a right shower but really? People think they are worse than the party that brought you Tiananmen Square? I reckon ChenShui Bien (or God save us even the KMT) would have to do a lot worse to plumb those depths. It’s this kind of thinking that is going to have Taiwan sleepwalking into the jaws of the tiger.