China has approved a sweeping new law which claims to help promote “ethnic unity” - but critics say it will further erode the rights of minority groups.
On paper, it aims to promote integration among the 56 officially recognised ethnic groups, dominated by the Han Chinese, through education and housing. But critics say it cuts people off from their language and culture.
It mandates that all children should be taught Mandarin before kindergarten and up until the end of high school. Previously students could study most of the curriculum in their native language such as Tibetan, Uyghur or Mongolian.
Can we please stop with the scare quotes around terms that don’t have the same connotation in their original language? The BBC is deliberately misleading its readers by translating 民族团结 to mean “ethnic unity”. A better translation in this case would be “national solidarity” but that wouldn’t sound as scary would it?
It’s also not unreasonable for a country to require schools to teach children the common language. Knowing 普通话 (the common language) is a critical skill for any Chinese national who wants to succeed in the modern Chinese economy. Almost every state with a national language does this in some way.
Instead of falling for deliberate mistranslations, maybe look up what was actually said in Mandarin next time.
Who cares what they call it, the end result is the same.
The end result is not the same. The article is purposely misconstruing the intent of that which changes how a reader might imagine it will be enforced. There is a big difference between forcibly suppressing ethic culture and identity and instead trying to better integrate China by ensuring children learn the tools they would need to communicate with their peers across the country.
This same law contains provisions that actually protect minority languages. It guarantees the right to learn and use minority languages. It also contains provisions to help keep them alive by directing the government to help archive minority language texts and support the standardization of minority languages. There are also provisions that explicitly outlaw ethnic discrimination and suppression. Do you think these aspects of the law would have been included if the actual intent was to suppress minority identity?
This would be true if it weren’t for the biggest unrecognised genocide taking place against the Uyghurs
It’s not recognized because there was never a genocide. You can still be critical of China. You can say they carried out a heavy handed de-radicalization program where innocent people were forcibly imprisoned. That’s likely true. However, calling it genocide when the evidence is just not there to make such a claim just waters down the utility of the term, especially when a genocide that is recognized by the UN is ongoing in Gaza.