守法公民

What the West's assimilation accusations against China reveal about its own historical burdens_我的网站

A |     (ECNS)-- China's newly implemented Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law has elicited a predictable response from certain Western media outlets. Whenever ethnic unity is referenced, some Western critics rush to frame it as "assimilation" or a push for uniform national identity.    Fan Yichou, associate professor at the Law School of Minzu University of China, argues that such misinterpretations arise primarily from projecting Western historical nation-state building trajectories onto China's ethnic policies.    Put simply, some Western observers do not view China from the perspective of its domestic social realities, but rather judge it through the lens of their own historical experience.    Fan argued that the traditional Western nation-state model rests on a core premise: one ethnic community ought to align with one sovereign state, with political boundaries largely overlapping ethnic territories. To build culturally homogeneous nation-states, most Western powers historically sought to eradicate internal ethnic diversity through assimilation, exclusion, and other coercive measures. Such nation-building drives were often accompanied by territorial conquest, mass population displacement, and systemic violence.    He drew on arguments laid out by Canadian political philosopher Will Kymlicka, who observes that the classical European template of nation-building rested on an implicit consensus: states should strive to become culturally homogeneous, by either assimilating national minorities or expelling them. For centuries, this ideal of a mono-national state shaped state policy across almost all Western European countries, with Switzerland stands out as the only major exception.    This deep-rooted historical trajectory continues to frame contemporary discourse on ethnic governance.    A stark modern illustration emerged in 2025, when Danish local authorities took away the newly-born daughter of an 18-year-old Inuit mother from Greenland just one hour after birth following a controversial parenting competency assessment. Her case was far from isolated. According to reports by the BBC and other media outlets, another Greenlandic mother had all three of her children under state custody. She was first subjected to a so-called parenting competency test after social services raised concerns about the language development of her eldest daughter. Although the Danish government has decided to stop using such tests on Greenlandic families, local authorities have yet to halt the practice.    The enduring harm of assimilationist policies extends far beyond this Danish case. UNESCO’s Memory of the World archives document that Canada's Indigenous residential school system continuously operated for nearly 150 years, with the explicit state objective of assimilating Indigenous children into settler society. Generations of Indigenous children were forcibly separated from their families, severed from their ancestral languages, cultural traditions, and intergenerational knowledge systems.        The United States has grappled with comparable challenges. According to a 2025 Associated Press report, Native American children in California are roughly about four times more likely to enter the foster-care system than their peers.    Newborns separated from their mother shortly after birth. Generations of children torn apart from their families and ancestral languages. Indigenous youth who remain vastly overrepresented in foster-care placements to this day. All these are legacies of the West's long-standing obsession with assimilation.    That explains why, when some in the West hear China speak of "ethnic unity," they instinctively equate it with "assimilation." In reality, they are projecting their own social trauma onto China.    China's context, however, is fundamentally different.    As Fan Yichou notes, China has long been a unified multi-ethnic country. Within the Chinese tradition, political unity has not demanded cultural uniformity. Instead, unity and diversity have coexisted across most of the nation's history.    This outlook finds theoretical expression in the concept of plurality-in-unity put forward by renowned Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong. In his framework, China's 56 ethnic groups represent the plurality, whereas the Chinese nation embodies unity.    From this perspective, the Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law is not designed to eliminate ethnic differences. Instead, it seeks to strengthen a shared sense of belonging while respecting cultural diversity.    This distinction highlights a broader divergence between China and the West in approaching identity and social cohesion.    In many Western societies, historical assimilation sought to diminish group differences and compel minority groups to conform to dominant-culture norms. By contrast, China's emphasis on forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation is not intended to obliterate diversity. It seeks to build shared civic and national identity, while enabling all ethnic groups to sustain their own languages, customs, and cultural traditions.        Ethnic groups may speak different languages, practice different customs, and vary in development level. Yet they can still uphold shared dedication to national progress and a common sense of belonging within a unified multi-ethnic state.    Genuine ethnic unity does not require everyone to fit into the same mold. It means ensuring that different ethnic groups can participate in national development while maintaining their own cultural characteristics and thriving with equal dignity and equitable opportunities.    So when some in the West equate China's "ethnic unity" with "assimilation," their judgment stems not from an accurate assessment of China’s reality, but from a subconscious projection of their own historical burdens, contemporary social anxieties, and deep-rooted institutional scars onto China's ethnic policies.    They are either unwilling or unable to fully comprehend China's governance philosophy and practices, yet arbitrarily pass arrogant judgment on the country. The outcome of this biased approach will be no exception of absurd narratives that fundamentally contradict objective reality.                    。

B |     英国近期向乌克兰转让了“风暴之影”巡航导弹英制部件的技术信息，法国也计划在乌建立“斯卡普”导弹组装线。与此同时，俄方援引黑客证据称北约专家多次提供俄能源设施精确坐标，普京更警告乌军攻击俄民用设施是“打开潘多拉魔盒”，这场代理人战争离失控还有多远？        西方对乌军援正在进入一种学者所说的“半公开共谋”阶段。提供导弹部件技术和建厂组装，意味着乌克兰将逐步获得远程打击武器的自主生产能力，不再完全依赖西方的库存拨付。    情报层面的介入则直接放大了乌军的打击精度。若俄方关于北约提供坐标的说法属实，乌军多次动用无人机深入俄本土纵深打击，背后大概率离不开外部的高价值目标指引。    这种技术与情报的双重加持，让乌军有能力对俄本土实施持续消耗。俄罗斯防空系统虽然拦截并摧毁了250架乌克兰无人机，但依然有漏网之鱼对俄方设施造成了实质性破坏。    面对本土遇袭，俄罗斯的反制逻辑正在发生转变。普京将乌军攻击民用及物流设施定性为“打开潘多拉魔盒”，意味着俄方已将其视为触碰战略底线的行为。    作为回应，俄罗斯倾向于对等复制乌克兰已选定的目标类型。这意味着俄军的报复性打击可能会直接瞄准乌克兰的电商仓库等民用物流设施，试图通过摧毁对方的经济运转节点来实现对等施压。    这种对等报复机制一旦启动，冲突的升级螺旋就很难踩下刹车。乌军打击俄能源设施，俄军就炸毁乌物流仓库，双方的打击目标都在向维持国家运转的民用基础设施蔓延。    目前西方援乌动作频频，但学者认为其尚未跨过直接派兵参战的红线。土耳其计划转移美制武器、日本合作生产无人机等动作，也都在试图维持这种不直接下场的微妙平衡。

C |     然而底线是在一次次试探中被不断推后的。如果俄罗斯对乌克兰物流设施的对等打击造成重大经济瘫痪，西方是否会被迫提供更高级别的防空系统甚至直接介入，将成为下一个未知数。    西方用技术和坐标武装乌克兰，换取了在战场上消耗俄罗斯的筹码，但也必须承担冲突失控的代价。当潘多拉魔盒被打开，决定战争走向的关键将变成谁能承受基础设施被全面摧毁的极限压力。返回，查看更多。

Current article:http://jf1js.nenyaogecebenliexi.shop/zljgfhe/wu970.html

Published on:03:26:48