Self-identification is fine and good, but not effective unless widely-recognized. I imagine that mainstream America has an even more difficult time parsing the differences between Taiwanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans. There seems to be a contradictory strategy – while Asian-Americans are loathe to group themselves together (as is evident in this thread), there is also a rah-rah solidarity that seems contrived and forced. Why is that?

I think it comes from a lack of honesty. All these cultural signifiers that are used to separate Taiwanese-Americans from other Asian-Americans, such as Jay Chou, pearl milk tea – they are not culture. Jay Chou is just a singer, and not a very good one (though a very talented musician and composer). Pearl milk tea is just a drink. These are very feeble markers of uniqueness, because they are the surface ornamentation of culture, not culture. Is that the best you can do?

Similarly, “Asian-American” culture is equally shallow. Cambodian and Korean culture are totally different. What then, would a Cambodian-American and a Korean-American have in common that is not just simply American? The only commonality I can see is the discriminatory treatment they receive, because they look the same to other people. Thus the Asian-American identity is ultimately founded on the perceptions and received treatment of other people. Thus the cultural territory given to “Asian-American culture” is very small.

I think Taiwanese-Americans (and other hyphenated Americans) need to go one of two ways. Either truly understand Taiwanese culture and develop a hybrid culture, or create your own totally independent culture. Either way, you must create an internally-motivated, positivist identity. The first choice is unrealistic. Every successive generation of Taiwanese-American is more American and less Taiwanese. The second choice seems more likely, and to some extent has already happened. Asian-Americans have their own unique Thanksgiving and Christmas traditions, and certainly Asian-American hip-hop adoption has flowed back to Asia. These are meager beginnings, but I think this is a start, and far healthier and more honest than watching Taiwanese music videos on Youtube without being able to understand the lyrics.

To be honest, I could care less about Chen Shui-bian. From what little I know of him, he does sound to have been somewhat corrupt, but I am sure there is a lot more corruption that happened under the KMT (if only for the fact that they have ruled modern day Taiwan longer).

As for Hong Kong and Macau, those “returned” to the PRC in a peaceful transition based on formal agreements with the British and Portuguese, who had formerly colonized those city-states. And Hong Kong and Macau are still for decades to come, “special administrative regions.” I love the fact the those in Hong Kong can protest against the PRC freely when it comes to June 4th and the fact that Macau is the Las Vegas of Asia.

Taiwan became a rich nation in the 70s, 80s and early 90s long before investments on mainland China. Of course, I do believe that future growth is very dependent on mainland China. But that is one reason why the Taiwanese government has been very strict in terms of ownership and investment rules for Taiwanese companies on the mainland and has pushed for greater diversification at times. The great irony of the situation is that a lot of China's growth has been based on Taiwanese companies and managers bringing their capital and expertise to China.

If the Taiwanese people want to “reunify” with China, that is their democratic prerogative. But I just don't see that happening and certainly I do not think this is “unstoppable,” despite your wishes. I don't think the Taiwanese people want this currently under a Communist political system, even if defined as a “special administrative region.” I don't rule out China becoming a democratic nation within our lifetime (who could have imagined the relatively QUICK peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union?), but I'd be surprised if it happened.

I think that the Taiwanese deciding to become a part of China is as likely as Americans deciding to become part of the United Kingdom again. Or with your economic argument, because America is so economically strong, the United Kingdom becoming a part of the United States.

To a certain degree, I agree. My overall point is that individuals have a right to self-identify themselves. This may differ in different contexts. All those who are American citizens, whether or not we were born her or naturalized here, can identify as Americans. As a Californian or Texan, I might self identify as from that state in a different context.

While growing up in the 70s and 80s, and as I had blogged, I really do feel there is a different immigrant experience and cultural upbringing than those whose parents were originally from mainland China or Hong Kong. If someone whose parents did come from Taiwan want to identify as Chinese Americans, that is their choice. I am just making the case that one should consider the case for Taiwanese American.

As for the amorphous “Asian American” identity – I think that is more for practical political-related purposes.

Let's just say a PRC was no longer a communist country and changed to a democracy, do you think Taiwanese would continue to insist on the Taiwanese label? or would they want to be considered as part of China?

This struggle between Taiwanese vs Chinese seems more like a political struggle and for certain people, more about social status level. Similar to how some might identify themselves as being from Hong Kong and not China still today.

I think this is a very interesting conversation and raises a few questions.

Let's compare this to similar Asian countries and see if the same would apply:.

If South Koreans no longer considered themselves as Koreans, because they kept being compared to the the communist North Korean…and decided to change the name of their country and people, would anyone hear complain?

Would people understand if South Vietnamese now considered themselves as “Saigonese” and no longer Vietnamese because of their different views against the Vietnamese communist?