Blogger’s Note: Switzerland, on the face of it, may not be a good example to present as an “exception” to mainstream Eurocentric (racist) attitudes and responses to the inevitable and required reforms Socialist China is bound to make. The European (US) perspective seems to be that by applying unjust “hurty” words – Chinese socio-economic development will cease. How strange and infantile is this approach – as well as being thoroughly racist. It is as if China is a “slave” being held in check by a chain controlled by the European hand. How arrogant and obscene. Socialist China will (and is) eclipsing the West – and this perplexes the average Western mind now entrapped as it is by the auspices of bourgeois excess. One-day, it is hoped, the Western mind will join China in the freedom that is Socialist emancipation. But I digress. From 1922-1945, Catholic Switzerland had very good relationships with both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany – acting as a banker for both. Indeed, the immense wealth the Nazis stole during the Holocaust (and the invasion of the USSR) was handled by Swiss banks – when the rest of the world boycotted the far-right State. Indeed, many years after WWII, victims of Nazism were pursuing legal action to recover their family’s wealth still held in obscure Swiss bank-vaults. Furthermore, as a supposedly “Neutral” country during WWII – Switzerland warmly opened its doors to Fascist Italians and Nazi Germans – who often rubbed shoulders with their Western enemies when visiting that country. Switzerland also permitted escaped German POWs to traverse Swiss territory in a bid to return to Germany. Was there a reason Switzerland was so close to Nazi Germany between 1933-1945? Well, between 1926 to 1973, the so-called “Pro Juventute Organisation”, (with Swiss government approval), is acknowledged as committing Crimes Against Humanity that targeted the Yenish, Manouche, and Sinti people in Switzerland (all Gypsy tribes). This policy was pursued by forcibly removing children from their families and placing them in foster homes, adoptive families, and correctional institutions through the “Kinder der Landstrasse” (Children of the Open Road) Project. Much of this barbarism was premised on the very “Eugenics” thinking that inspired Adolf Hitler – with Swiss policies before, during, and after WWII “mirroring” those of Nazi Germany. The “Yenish”, of course, are also referred to as “Gypsies” in other countries (they comprise one tribe of Romani people living in Switzerland). Even after WWII, the Swiss government continued to forcibly “Sterilise” Gypsy women of ALL tribes living in Switzerland – with the intention of “ethnically cleansing” this group from Swiss territory. During WWII, the Swiss government actively deported its own Gypsy population to Nazi German Concentration Camps – where they were exterminated en masse. Therefore, “Fan Yichou” – the Associate Professor at the Law School of Minzu University of China (quoted at length in the below article) – needs to carrying-out further research if he mistakenly thinks “Switzerland” offers a viable option to State-building in the West. Yes – there is a type of “Pluralism” in effect as seen in the “Canton” model operating in Switzerland, but this is achieved through a strict separation of the (preferred) “races”. Throughout much of its contemporary history, Switzerland accrued wealth at the expense of other ethnic groups being displaced or exterminated, and sought to maintain its “Pluralist” racial purity by removing the ability of certain groups from reproducing. This situation might demonstrate how difficult it can be to shine a light into a different culture and interpret what is going on correctly. Switzerland, of course, provides the “Swiss Guard” for the Vatican. If that does not set alarm bells ringing – nothing will! Switzerland has a surprising amount of blood on its hands despite its “Neutral” stance regarding international politics. Most of its policies regarding “assimilation” have been overtly “fascist” in all but name – and are certainly nothing to be proud of. ACW (6.8.2026)
2026-08-05 Ecns.cn
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.
(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.
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.
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 