Dear Mr. Bloom:

Thank you for your letter; it came to me because I was the map editor for the China supplement. Our policy on Taiwan went through considerable discussion, taking into account statements from the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China. Below is a summary of our policy:

National Geographic has long maintained a de facto cartographic policy; that is, to portray to the best of our judgment the world as it is, as opposed to as any individual or organization might claim it to be. National Geographic strives to be apolitical, to consult multiple authoritative sources, and to make independent decisions based on extensive research.

The issue of the sovereignty of Taiwan (Republic of China) as distinct from mainland China (People’s Republic of China) is complex. The People's Republic of China claims sovereignty over Taiwan and regards it as a province of China. The United Nations and most countries, including the U.S., acknowledge that Taiwan is part of China and recognize the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China.

The National Geographic Society’s map policy on recognizing independent nations is based on three main principles:

It claims independence
It controls the territory it claims
It has international recognition

Relative to these principles, Taiwan 1) does not claim independence; 2) it does control the territory it claims; 3) very few countries have formal diplomatic relations with it. In essence, Taiwan meets only one of our three criteria common to independent countries.

As reflected in its formal name, the government of Taiwan (Republic of China) considers itself to be part of China. In 1991 the Republic of China acknowledged on a constitutional level “that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are under separate rule.” This means that Taiwan considers itself part of a historic and traditional China—but not part of the People’s Republic of China. There is one China, but there are two separate entities.

In short, while Taiwan functions independently, its government has never formalized independence, and Taiwan is not recognized as independent by the UN and most countries. I would note that the results of recent legislative and presidential elections indicate that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is less likely to assert its independence in the near future.

Hope this helps. Thanks for writing National Geographic.

Sincerely yours,

David

Your map is wrong. Taiwan is not part of China. Please use an other color.

It actually says in red.

"TAIWAN. The People's Republic of China claims Taiwan as its 23rd province. Taiwan's government (Republic of China) maintains that they are two political entities."

there was no disclaimer on the map at all.

I fail to comprehend what all the fuss is about relative to whether Taiwan should be the same “color” as China on a map today. It is time to accept the reality that 21st century Washington is changing the geopolitical map of the world, especially since Washington has been selling our Treasury, and exporting so many jobs, opportunities and American manufacturing, science and technology to China.

Face it folks, the #1 fact of life in America today is that Washington is already in the process of changing the “color” of Washington to that of China and we have failed to understand this in time to stop this evolution. At the rate Washington is selling out America to China, Mandarin will be our second language before the end of this century.

Well, this map case is interesting. One reader in Taiwan says he has a copy of the new MAY issue, with a map of China and Taiwan, that has a red disclaimer on it. However, he might be looking at the CHINA ATLAS book, not the magazine per se. On the map on the CHINA ATLAS book of maps, there is a disclaimer in red, you can see it online as well in the products section here. But the actual magazine of May 2008 that I have seen, two times to check, does not have a red disclaimer near the city of Kaohsiung at all. Nada.

So question to editors: do you guys put out different editions of the magazine for Taiwan readers, so that the Taipei edition sold in Taipei bookstores is different from the English edition sold in other parts of the country? Could be. Are there different English editions of the magazine for Japan, Malaysia, USA, CHINA and TAIWAN, or are all English edition the very exact same? Wish one of the editors would reply, maybe David Miller. Thanks.

It's a learning experience for everyone interested in mapmaking, i hope. There might be different editions of the MAy issue circulating even in Taiwan. Is that possible, Mr Miller? yes no?

My guess is that the pullout maps, the multiple maps inserted in the magazine, as pullout maps, are reprints from the CHINA ATLAS and do contain the red disclaimer mentioned in above posts by Cfimages.

But the magazine that i have in my hand, in English edition, pages 44-55 of the actuall print run of the magazine itself, does not contain this disclaimer anywhere on the two page truck. Maybe it was an oversight.

To Dan Bloom:
Don't you think it is not proper to bring political topic to NG? It is defined as an apolitical magazine. All it focuses on is geography and human culture. All we learned from it is about Nature, about Earth. We do not expect it to be politically accurate about everything.
If you want a judge or argument about whether or not Taiwan is part of China, please go to those political publications.

Conclusion for those following this thread. In fact, the magazine, pages 44-45, the map on that double truck spread, two pages, does not contain any disclaimer about how Taiwan and China view their respective sovereignities, and the posts above about there being such a disclaimer on page 44-45 was incorrect. And that is what this thread was originally about.

The discussion was a good one, even though editor Chris Johns still has not chimed in, nor Bill McBulty, who was in charge of that double truck. I hope they will inform readers later about how that decision NOT to print a disclaimer in the magazine itself, on pages 44-45, was reached. It may have just been editorial oversight, deadline pressure. I am sure they were not kowtowing to Beijing. National Geographic is above that!

Cheers

DB

I have spent time in Taiwan and China. 100% percent of the Taiwanese people I met felt theirs is an independent country. Official government statements can differ from popular sentiments. Which should journalists reflect?

To me, Mr. Miller's statement seems to say the following:

"At National Geographic Society, we report information based on official statements. When public opinion differs, journalist decisions will be made in favor of the government approved stance."

So applying this policy to another situation, even if eyewitnesses say 30 people were killed during the government crackdown in Myanmar, National Geographic will only report the government approved estimate of 10 deaths.

My faith is not restored.

Here is a letter sent by a former Taipei reporter now living in the USA. He wrote to the editor of the National Geographic magazine:

"As a foreign correspondent who spent 10 years in Taiwan and four years in Beijing, I'm probably more sensitive than most of your readers
to the politics of the Taiwan-China rivalry. So when I see that the
splendid May issue of your magazine on China features a prominent map
showing Taiwan to be part of China, it practically screamed at me for
correction.

It's true that the United States government officially recognizes
"one China" in its diplomatic rhetoric, but what this means in
practice is quite different from what the authorities in Beijing want
it to mean. In fact, the US has a "two China" policy, with separate
representation and recognition of the de facto independence of the
Taiwan government. All of Taiwan's major trading partners have a
similar, some would say hypocritical, accomodation to the realities of
the Taiwan-China split since talk about "one China" but are forced to
treat the two sides as separate countries.

But none of this should matter to independent publishers such as
yourself, especially since the facts on the ground speak louder than
the political compromises made by governments. Map makers need to
depict the world as it is, not as certain governments would like it to
be, Beijing's considerable power and influence notwithstanding.

It's also a deep injustice to the 23 million people of Taiwan -- who
enjoy a fully functioning democracy and have never been ruled by the
People's Republic of China -- to assert that they are a part of that
country. Beijing's claim to Taiwan is longstanding, but it's actual
jurisdiction over the island is non-existent.

As a life-long collector of National Geographic maps, I'm loathe to
see your distinguished reference charts distorted by mere propaganda
and diplomatic pretensions.

I urge you to publish a correction to your map, showing that Taiwan is
politically distinct from China."

Dear Chris,

I read your special issue on China and it was informative, well-written and the photography was outstanding.

My comment concerns the names of cities. I like to go back, when a city is mentioned, and look it up on the map, yet the cities in this issue's map are so small and crowded I couldn't locate them.

It would help if your writers could mention a significant landmark so we could better relate to the story.

Thanks, Charles Smith, Oregon City OR

As someone who follows a much different knowledge base, I will not give an opinion on the map issue. I am interested in people's comments like Jojo as we are adopting a daughter from China (an orphan). I hope Chinese Americans will help those of us who want our Chinese daughters to know as much as they can about their birth country and National Geographic has done a great job with their May issue. Thank you.
Alyson LID 01/27/06
www.alyzabethan.blogspot.com

Dear NG journalism wannabe staff:

Yep, you got it, boys and girls, I'm one hacked off "baby-boomer" who's had it up to here with the sea change NG has gone thru since I was a kid.

Like so much of the liberal, "oh my God, the planet is dying and it's all my fault!!!" shrill, sensationalist media that simply thrives on sensational negativity, you guys have gone over the edge.

In the days "long ago", your magazine simply exhibited thru pictorial and objective perspective a view/experience of our planet that "invited us" to learn more about it and embrace it.... without any judgemental, self-righteousness so prevalent in your "mag" today. YES, I am in total agreement: we humans have truly made several mistakes in our history as chosen "stewards" of this wonderful blue globe, but for cryin' out loud, PLEASE see yourselves as one negative troup of self-elected supreme critics of our bad choices and turn it around... can you perceive the wonderful human character of "positive thinking" while pointing out our dirty laundry?

Get back to objectivity: get back to finding enjoyable wonderment of our planet that was created by a much greater "Father/Mother" than any of us can conceive of equaling... and get the heck off politically correct, whining, cynical, negative "journalism"... and I use that term loosely and it applies to you characters!

Your May 2008 presentation of China was wonderful for most of us on the readership side... except for your politically oriented crap commentary...

Just stop it!!
We're tired of it!!

Dave
.

Dear Chris,

I'm a Chinese student currently studying in U.S., and I was happy to see this special issue reporting China. With in a mere hundred pages the magazine has collected articles covering urbanization progress, middle-class life, rural life, Olympics' influence, and serious pollutions - those are all high-profile issues that reflect a real China in the first 10 years of this century. Overall it provides deep insights for the readers and keep their knowledge about this Eastern giant updated. And the photography is also great.
As we know, some recent events have reflected there were longstanding bilateral misunderstanding between China and the Western World. What NG has done here indeed is a bold step toward solving this problem. But NG also bears the commitment of introducing culture and the culture-based value views. The magazine intensifies the intro of current situation - though in various perspectives - but yet lacks a proper focus on the culture comparison. Chinese internal spirit, its profound culture and view approaches might not be able to introduced by only several symbols or terminology like dragon, Yin Yang, and Feng Shui. There are something well beyond that yet to be reported. China suffers a heavy loss of tradition during its ambitious modernization progress, but hardly the 4000-year past prosperous civilization fails to exert influences in various ways under the scene.
Afterall there does not exist a cultural conflict. It is cultural diversity that has painted the world so colorful and vivid in humanity and social life. U.S. is a great country that embraces the cultural diversity, but I would argue it is still not so open-minded. It is after all, the vast differences between the East and West, in terms of the value views and the philosophical applications in life, simply needs to be further addressed. By doing this you may discover that, a vague proposal of democracy itself, might be a controversial topic on someone's way towards prosperity. I may be a bit too critical in viewing this, but beyond our mutual perception of America's greatness, the United States still has room for promotion, and can be even wiser.

Deng Tiancheng
Chicago, Illinois

How about an issue on the Rice Crisis? See below my correspondence with a Scientists from IRRI.

For my own part I can offer my own knowledge as a Geographer:

1. We are growing irrigated rice here at up to 39º North in a hot dry climate, so rice limits must extend to all areas ·+/- 38º from the equator, ie. the whole of Africa, Central and most of South America, most of Australia, apart from the traditional areas. Inorder to exploit these areas the rice growers and users should set up a political organization capable of negotiating with govts and industry to open up likely areas and set up iirrigation schemes. Places like war torn Iraq would make excellent rice growing areas, the problem is the political will to produce food instead of fighting. Indeed a minimum amount of the money spent in weapons R&D would suffice to finance agricultural research world wide but the sad fact is that humanity puts so much store on force and so little on charity.

2. We have an on going agricultural pilot project that could be adapted to a shrimp pond environment where the waters where too salty for rice, this perennial produces high protien forage proven acceptable so far to animals from wild ducks, to sheep, cattle and horses and would probably be useful for carp and catfish too, (salt water crocodiles can also be bred in those ponds for meat and valuable skins).

We also have a perennial grain that can be grown in salty water.

In conclusion, solutions abound, political goodwill????????????????
That is mankinds problem. We have researched this plant with Zero government funding. So we haven't been able to take this highly promising crop up to the commercial stage so far.

Best regards,

David

For IRRI report see link below:

http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1&realattid=0.1&attid=0.1&disp=vah&view=att&th=119993ef0d2e3bc8

On 28/04/2008, Guerta, Corinta (IRRI) wrote:
Hope all is well with you!

Corinta

the_rice_crisis[1].pdf
601K View as HTML Download

Hi,

I was wondering why no one ever writes about the large number of Chinese pyramids scattered across the country? As you can see from the ariel views from Xi'an (Xianyang), just one example, there are many and some tried to cover them with trees and what not, but they are still obvious. The largest of the world's pyramids in Giza, Mexico City, and China all match the astrological constellation: Orion. However, I have noticed, the pyramids at Giza are an upside down version of the others, does that mean that the world has actually rotated upside down since they were built, proving that they are the oldest pyramids to date? Who really knows, but I would like to see articles about the Chinese Pyramids in the future, it would be interesting since most people don't even know that they exist. Why would they hide them and keep them a secret since some of them are bigger than the Egyptian and Mexican pyramids?

http://web.utanet.at/mahain/Pyramids_in_China.htm

To those who are interested in Taiwan's independence:

As far as I know, a similar debate happened in China ten years ago. A lot of readers criticized an official geographic press to include Hawaii and Guam as part of the United States in their published world map...

Dear Chris,

I love love your latest issue! NG has always been my favorite magazine growing up and the photos and articles in the latest issue on China are spectacular.

As for the Taiwan debate, thanks for the clarification. It's such a complex issue and I think NG has handled it in a very even handed manner.

I have enjoyed Peter Hessler's articles on China and look forward to more good work from Peter.

Dear Chris,

I am in Canada and I am a new reader of NG starting from this year(:-)).
I love the magazine,every issue. You guys are really doing a great job. For example, from the March issue of "inside animal minds",I firstly realize that animals,like human being, can think and talk too. thank you guys.
For the map issue many readers commented here, I totally agree with your clarification. Just one word for you, support!

Dear All,

Taiwan's official name is
"Republic of China"
and mainland is
"People's republic of China"
which part of "China" do you guys (who disagree), don't understand. both are legitimately China, just with two politcal system that disagrees with each other. Please read some history text books before feeling so outraged.

To Patrick Deschere:

Your accusation is absurd. Let's take a closer look at your argument. First, Taiwanese you met represent all Taiwanese? Yet the official claim of Taiwan (ROC) government and recent referendum and election results do not represent Taiwanese? Second, popular sentiments among the people you met determine the sovereignty of a region? Third, 99% governments on this planet, including those boast the highest level of democracy, do not represent their people, except Burkina Faso, Belize, etc.?

I strongly support NG's objective and apolitical stance. It is high time for the west to get out of the "cold war" mindset and view the world based on facts instead of ideology. Dismissing anything slightly less anti-China as "communist propaganda" is no doubt convenient but clearly stupid.

Hi I am American. Texan to be specific. Overall very interesting issue this month. Amy Tan article and Chinese mysticism most intriguing. However, I would like to point out that the 'economic' facts on page 170 are very misleading. To say the avg. Chinese worker needs six months pay to purchase a, "thomas the train toy set" is ridiculous. When your rent, food, electric, and water is paid by gov't. coupons, how much salary do you need??

I've been looking at my May 2008 issue on China and I have to tell you I'm shocked by the picture on Pg. 122. In the U.S. there are laws against child pornography and anyone who thinks there aren't kids skinny dipping in the U.S. is kidding themselves. The only difference is that in the U.S. it would be illegal for a photographer to follow a group of naked children around and snap their picture. It would also be a crime for a magazine to publish naked pictures of U.S. children. For a renowned magazine to change the rules when it comes to the children of another country is elitist, immoral, and it should be illegal.

Kathy,

There is nothing sexual about the picture of the young child who had swam in a river and was returning to fetch his bike. Unlike the US, it is unimaginable to most Chinese that children would be looked at in a sexual way. That's why people in China do not blink an eye when young children are naked in public.

Your criticism would only be valid if we as a society agree with those sick twisted people that children are sexual objects. Then I would agree that no magazine should ever publish any naked pictures of young children.

Hello from Slovenia,

I've been reading these blogs for quite a while, but never managed to comment. As a photographer and journalist (I also publish in all three Slovenian editions of National Geographic) who knows how many truths and opinions are out there I won't even begin to comment on some of the complaints issues here. Instead I have a comment on the atmosphere of China you write about in this blog. I haven't been to China yet, but I did experience the hustle and bustle of eastern countries and I have to say that all that chaos, crowd, something like an anthill, is somehow at the same time tiring and forfilling for me. While others feel threatened and out of control of their surroundings, I feel great. Maybe too great at times, should still be more careful. And that's where I also take my favorite pictures. I do wear myself out, but for that I need a lot to see and a lot happening.
As for the changes are concerned, well they're seen everywhere and they're fast. Really fast. And I agree, these changes are very photogenic. I've seen them in Egypt, especially in Cairo.

Last but not least, I've been a longtime subscriber to NGM Intl. edition. Keep up the amazing work.

Sincerely,
Luka

UPDATE on map controversy:

While the English-language edition of the May issue on China prints a map on pages 44-45 that show Taiwan to be a part of China (without a disclaimer in red letter as IS printed on the pullout map, and which IS the usual polocy of NG), the Chinese-language edition of the May issue on China prints the same map in the magazine, showing Taiwan and China to be of the same color on the map (green) BUT WITH a disclaimer in red ink. So good on NG, but the readers inside communist China will be very angry when they see this apparent slap in the face.

Hello From Israel
When Showing Maps of Israel, There is no Problem showing The palestinian territories as seperate land.
But regarding Taiwan - NG always is very careful not to
make China Angry.
I guess it is all depends how strong is the country the map is reffering to

David Miller senior editor ngm, what a wonderful answer about the complexity of taiwan, china. Geography, like science, has a wholistic interpretation with multiple meanings and tends to yield away from "reductionism" of the 19th century. The editor's note on p4, "waves of its growth reverberate", reminded me of the dawn of Arab culture in the 9th c and the Florentine in the 14th c. If China maintains its trajectory, this may be something unparalled in history because of its population size and technology. The fact that China, is using western styles in a new bold way, in modern architecture, looks ahead to "waves" of cultural innovation.

Dear Mr Johns,

I have send you letter in separate e-mail on ngsforum@nationalgeographic.com more than one months after NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC issue about China because term of my trip to China, but also because of its importance for me I ask You to publish it. Related to a great impessions and emotions from China world which seems to me partly similar like yours are, I expect from You some comments or answer.

Best regards,

Zoran Stošić, grad. mechanical engineer
Zastava AGeM – Director
In charge of the realization of the GM/Opel project and other new projects in Zastava automotive company
Add. Zorana Djindjica St. 10/7
34000 Kragujevac, Serbia
E-mail: z.stosic@sbb.co.yu
Tel: +381 34 302 346, Mob +381 65 6322710
Fax: +381 34 302 366

Dear Mr Johns,

I have sent You a letter on separate e-mail ngsforum@nationalgeographic.com
more than one months after NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC issue about China because term of my trip to China, but also because of its importance for me I ask You to publish it. Related to a great impessions and emotions from China world which seems to me partly similar like yours are, I expect from You some comments or answer.

Best regards,

Zoran Stošić, grad. mechanical engineer
Zastava AGeM – Director
In charge of the realization of the GM/Opel project and other new projects in Zastava automotive company
Add. Zorana Djindjica St. 10/7
34000 Kragujevac, Serbia
E-mail: z.stosic@sbb.co.yu
Tel: +381 34 302 346, Mob +381 65 6322710
Fax: +381 34 302 366

hey,guys.
i am a member of CPC.
i have to admit that there are a lot of misunderstandings and conflicts between CHINA MAINLAND and TAIWAN PROVINCE.BUT WE SHOULD FOCUS ON MUTUAL BENEFICTS INSTEAD OF INTER-HAZARD.
SHOULDN'T WE/>?

To Brook Larmer,
How did China get so far off track?
By not following the "WAY"!
Lao Tzu was right,nature is harmony,
harmony is balance,balance is Chi!