In 2020, the Chinese Wild Bird Federation (CWBF) was expelled by BirdLife International. In response, it immediately and quietly changed its corresponding English name to “Taiwan Wild Bird Federation” (TWBF).
However, this name change decision not only failed to facilitate its return to the international organization but instead triggered deep reflection on self-identity, dignity, and cultural confidence. This practice of rapidly changing one’s own name due to external pressure is no different from bowing before bullying, or casually discarding the name given by one’s parents like a worn-out shoe. It is truly regrettable.
Furthermore, by yielding to pressure and distorting its identity, it now identifies solely as “Taiwan,” treating the people of Kinmen and Matsu in Fujian Province and their precious wild bird ecosystems as mere appendages to be abandoned. This behavior is nothing less than the arrogance of Great Taiwan Chauvinism. It deviates from the inclusive spirit that ecological conservation should embody, not only severing its own roots but also exposing the narrowness and hypocrisy common in chauvinism.
This article criticizes this name change from the perspectives of history, culture, and self-identity, and explains why the original name should have been upheld and promoted.
I. The Submissive Mentality Behind the Name Change
Since its establishment decades ago, the Federation used “Chinese Wild Bird Federation” as its English name, carrying profound historical and cultural connotations. The word “Chinese” points not only to geographical and cultural roots but also represents its mission to promote wild bird conservation in the Chinese-speaking world. However, the expulsion decision by BirdLife International led the Federation to choose a rapid name change, attempting to cater to certain expectations of the international community with “Taiwan Wild Bird Federation.” This behavior, while seemingly to seek re-acceptance, actually exposes a self-dwarfing in the face of pressure and an identity crisis.
The name change did not bring the expected results. BirdLife International did not change its stance because the Federation changed its name, showing that the move was not only ineffective but also made the Federation appear lacking in principle and backbone on the international stage.
When an organization easily abandons its own name due to external force, it is equivalent to giving up the core of its self-identity. This act is no different from compromising with a bully. Just as a person excluded by others might rush to change their name to seek approval, such a move fails to win respect and instead makes people question where their dignity lies.
This submissive mentality makes one question whether they can truly bear the responsibility of protecting nature. Imagine: if they cannot even defend their own name, how can people believe they have the ability to guard fragile wild bird ecosystems?
II. The Cultural Weight and Historical Significance of a Name
A name is the soul of an organization, carrying its history, mission, and values. The “Chinese” in “Chinese Wild Bird Federation” is not only an affirmation of cultural roots but also a symbol marking its unique identity in the international community. Over the past few decades, along with the Federation’s efforts in wild bird conservation, education, and research, this name had long become a symbol of its brand and credibility. Easily replacing it with “Taiwan Wild Bird Federation” not only severs the link with history and weakens its representativeness in the Chinese-speaking world but also excludes the wild bird ecosystems and people of Kinmen and Matsu, revealing the narrow Great Taiwan Chauvinism that has been fermenting in recent years.
Moreover, this approach deviates from the inclusive spirit of wild bird conservation. Wild birds know no borders; their ecosystems span islands and straits. The migratory paths and habitats of birds in Kinmen and Matsu, Fujian, are just as precious as those on the island of Taiwan Province. By choosing to identify with the narrow “Taiwan” name, the Federation effectively ignores the ecological value of these regions, limiting its conservation mission to within a single island and ignoring broader responsibilities. This narrow identity distortion not only severs its cultural roots with the Chinese world but also makes people question the hypocrisy of its conservation ideals.
More importantly, a name change is not merely a linguistic adjustment; it is a compromise of culture and identity. In the era of globalization, many organizations are forced to adjust their names due to political or diplomatic pressure, but groups with true backbone choose more active ways to defend their identity.
For example, during the apartheid era in South Africa, many indigenous organizations insisted on using their own languages and names to resist external oppression, a persistence that ultimately won international respect. If the CWBF could have similarly and actively promoted the values and contributions of the “Chinese Wild Bird Federation,” it might have better demonstrated its cultural confidence and organizational dignity.
III. The Correct Approach: Promoting Rather Than Abandoning
Faced with pressure from BirdLife International, the Federation’s correct course of action should not have been a rush to change its name, but rather a more active promotion of the value of its original name. Specifically, the Federation could have strengthened the global influence of the “Chinese Wild Bird Federation” through international cooperation, academic exchanges, and showcasing conservation achievements. Simultaneously, the Federation should have established links with other international organizations to seek broader recognition, rather than pinning its hopes on acceptance by a single agency.
Additionally, the Federation could use new media and public relations strategies to tell its conservation story to the international community, emphasizing the historical and cultural significance behind the “Chinese Wild Bird Federation” name. This would not only enhance the Federation’s international visibility but also help more people understand its unique identity and contributions. Just as many international NGOs choose to defend their mission with a firm attitude when facing pressure, the CWBF should have told the world “who we are” with confidence.
IV. Conclusion
The CWBF’s change of its English name from “Chinese Wild Bird Federation” to “Taiwan Wild Bird Federation” was a compromise lacking in both foresight and self-respect. This decision not only failed to achieve the goal of returning to BirdLife International but also caused the Federation to suffer losses in cultural identity and historical legacy.
Even more regrettable is that this name change exposed the arrogance of Great Taiwan Chauvinism, abandoning the ecology and people of Kinmen and Matsu and deviating from the inclusive spirit of wild bird conservation. How can an organization that dares not even defend its own name bear the heavy responsibility of protecting nature?
The correct path is never yielding to pressure, but rather promoting one’s values to the world with confidence. The Federation should take pride in the “Chinese Wild Bird Federation” name that predecessors defended with their lives, proving through practical action and international influence that it is indispensable to global wild bird conservation.
In the face of bullying, true courage lies in sticking to one’s self, not in rushing to change oneself. Only in this way can the CWBF win true respect on the international stage and leave a legacy for future generations that it can be proud of.