Re: why must Debian call Taiwan a "Province of China"?
Bruce Miller wrote:
It is perfectly reasonable of Debian to adopt an international standard.
It raises Debian above the debate which is taking place here.
I protest. It is not perfectly reasonable. This is not a political issue
for me. I have no established opinion as to whether or not Taiwan is
properly a "Province of China."
Debian does not obtain neutrality by selecting an existing political
compromise and simply saying, "That's it, we don't want to get
involved." Simply saying something does not make it so. As I explained
at length, "Province of China" serves no legitimate purpose in the
selection of a locale. Its sole purpose is to convey a political
statement (a relation of political authority of a part to a whole)
beyond this single purpose, a statement which is highly controversial.
Debian can not hide behind "it is a standard". As I have thoroughly
explained previously, selecting "Taiwan, Province of China" is a choice
(a selection made without necessity), and is not a choice warranted by
any practical consideration.
The "perfectly reasonable" option is to remove the political commentary,
"Province of China" and to stop hiding behind "it is a standard," an
appeal to authority, as if that could legitimize the inclusion of an
assertion of a political relation, where there ought not to be one.
Even now, selecting "Taiwan" is not to select, "not Province of China."
Rather, it is to de-politicize the statement altogether. "Taiwan" does
not mean, "Taiwan, not Province of China." It is neutral on the issue.
Publications around the world and in China itself employ "Taiwan"
independently of "Taiwan, Province of China."
Neither is the act itself of now removing "Province of China" a
political act. It is an act by a party that wishes to remain neutral to
de-politicize the a representation of a locale. Further, no practical
value is lost by de-politicizing this representation, for "Province of
China" served no practical or non-political end to begin with.
dircha
Reply to: