198
submitted 13 hours ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

For years, Chinese leader Xi Jinping has pushed ethnic minority groups like Tibetans and Uyghurs to adopt an identity rooted in Chinese nationality and allegiance to the ruling Communist Party.

Now, that push has been codified into a sweeping new law that reaches into classrooms, neighborhoods and homes – and gives Beijing the right to target people outside of its borders that it believes violate its rules.

The statute, officially known as the Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law, came into effect on July 1. It bans acts that “undermine ethnic unity or create ethnic division” among China’s 56 officially recognized ethnicities, which include a Han Chinese majority that makes up over 90% of the country’s 1.4 billion people.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I am definitely sympathetic to the defense against foreign dissent-manufacturing. I don't doubt that is a serious issue.

But, ethnicity and nationality are separate things. Being a Chinese citizen does not make one ethnically Chinese - or in this case Han Chinese. I think what you are calling "sub-ethnicity" here is just what people mean by "ethnicity". And what you're implying is "ethnicity" is just "nationality".

Though I think the CCP is trying to establish the concept of a Zhonghua Minzu (中华民族) or "Chinese Nation/Ethnic Group" - which is an artificial category intended to create a unified Chinese national identity out of the 56 ethnic groups recognized in China - maybe that's what you mean? Either way, that doesn't fit the typical anthropological definition, in my opinion.

I think they walk a fine line with that concept - it'd be very easy for that national identity to represent the Han majority more than the small minorities. As evidenced by the language restrictions posed by the law. Given the Han majority is 90% of the country, I don't see how it could be otherwise.

To the extent that it reduces racism and foreign-sponsored dissent groups, that is good. To the extent that it limits free practice of culture and true, non-US-State-Dept sponsored, free speech, I'd say it's overly draconian. But, I can also appreciate the need for more "authoritarian" laws in a country that has been under attack by foreign powers for as long as China has.

I am not a Chinese legal expert and have not read the full law, nor do I fully understand the context. So I withhold full judgment and don't value my opinion too highly.

this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
198 points (100.0% liked)

World News

56832 readers
1607 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS