Perhaps, I should have replied to the older post, and my reply would have been more appropriate. Regardless, since you accused me of twisting your words, let’s dissect my post and your post. This was what I was actually addressing:If you read my posts carefully, I did not say in an absolute way. Specifically at the end I said my points are in the ballpark and may not be accurate (meaning, 100% in details).
With regard to simplified characters, I did not argue against all of you inputs. I just pointed out that it was the new China that started using simplified in a systematic way by laws, i.e., a whole-sale revolution in Chinese usage.
With regard to the collateral damages of KMT withdrawal, I did not say "all". I just mentioned "some".
Most important of all, I did not agree that Taiwan keeps Chinese tradition better than mainland, in my original answer to the question. I merely provided some historical background to help explain that phenomenon. To the contrary, there is no way Taiwan keeps Chinese traditions, let alone representing. Otherwise, Taiwan would not have been green-colored so fast so deep.
So please do not twist my original answers to the original question. It was an explanation in a historical context, rather than any academic or definitive conclusions.
As I said, once again, they are in the ballpark. Collectively, they paint a picture that is sufficient to explain some perceptions or even distortions.
The part that I bolded indicates to me that those five points are being presented as facts. If you wanted them to be viewed as “not 100% accurate facts” that are popular, then you could have used “general opinions” or “popular viewpoints”. Regardless, based on that and the five points, I decided to correct them. For the characters aspect, you said:It is a long story. And many people from different background may have different angle. But just a few historical facts as background materials:
(1) When KMT retreated from mainland to Taiwan, many top intellectuals went with them, including some top scholars in Chinese culture or history.
(2) The palace museum in Taipai has more top Chinese relics than in Beijing. From a different angle, that is a measure how KMT looted China when fleeing to Taiwan.
(3) Taiwan keeps the traditional Chinese characters. China went with reformed (simplified) Chinese characters. Chinese history was either written in traditional Chinese or even ancient Chinese.
(4) Mao led a few political campaigns that diminished the traditional Chinese culture, by design. He realized long before he took over CCP that all previous efforts to save China failed because traditional Chinese culture was in the way of enlightenment (including industrialization). You don't have to agree with him. Actually many Chinese disagree. But one historical factor is that his campaigns did lay a foundation for China's impossible industrialization after he passed away. Ironical, yes. Controversial, absolutely. But it is brutally true. And this point, very few westerners, or even Chinese, understand.
(5) PRC is known to us as the new China, in which I grew up. But to many overseas Chinese, PRC is a communist country. ROC is more like a traditional Chinese entity. I disagree with this perception. But this is also a factor in many overseas (ethic) Chinese.
Just to name a few. May not be all accurate. But I think they are in the ballpark.
I pointed out that simplified characters derived from an ancient form of Chinese script that was in use for a while and that it was inevitable for China to adopt them.(3) Taiwan keeps the traditional Chinese characters. China went with reformed (simplified) Chinese characters. Chinese history was either written in traditional Chinese or even ancient Chinese.
To me, that sounds like that fact was implying China was devoid of intellectuals that specialized in Chinese history and culture. I brought up those two figures since they are considered to be part of China’s cultural, historical and philosophical core of intellectuals.(1) When KMT retreated from mainland to Taiwan, many top intellectuals went with them, including some top scholars in Chinese culture or history.
So, no, I didn’t twist anything. I replied in an appropriate manner.
Last edited: