throaway425119
Before you insinuate anything in the future, step back and think -- is this true? Did I bother to investigate further? You made insinuations based on vague associations and no evidence at all. Insinuations are deadly because you don't even have to worry about something being true or not because once you've planted an idea, it's there.
Comments like yours create seeds for narratives that get planted and reinforced. You might not care, but many of us have to live with those narratives thrust upon us.
This is not some attempt on my part to gain any kind of moral superiority but to speak out against what is clearly a baseless insinuation, associating a Pixar film made by a Chinese Canadian director with the CCP when there is no clear link.
Asian Americans are currently targeted with verbal and physical violence because of pervasive undifferentiated narratives the likes of which you espouse.
Turning Red is the first Pixar film solo-directed by a Chinese-Canadian woman Domee Shi (who also made the Academy Award winning Bao short). The film was inspired by her childhood in Toronto, hence the many Canadian references, and is told from a culturally and gender specific lens. It's a 2nd generation immigrant story.
Remember, there are tons of Chinese people out there who have little or nothing to do with the authoritarian Chinese state. I should know. I'm one of them.
This knee-jerk bias against anything Chinese is xenophobic and racist.
The 26% and 10% have a culture of striving, and they typically aspire towards business and/or the professions.
The 60% (the majority) are indigenous and had civilization that stretches back centuries. However, they did not (and do not) have a achievement-oriented culture and therefore are not given to striving (at least in comparison to the former groups).
For the longest time, the 26% and the elite among the 10% controlled the economy. This all came to a head when racial riots broke out, after which the government introduced affirmative action favoring the 60%, for exactly the reasons you outlined -- to create racial harmony and to quell the racial resentment.
In a sense, it worked. For decades racial strife was low, at the expense of marginalizing the capable 26% and 10%.
The problem is that once you introduce affirmative action, it becomes a political tool for staying in power, and no government can ever remove it without risking losing an election.
Affirmative action is a short term band-aid. If you keep it on for too long, people depend on it and the entire system degrades, especially when it applies to a large enough number of people. People lose the incentive to strive to do better, and the standards go down to accommodate the lowest common denominator. Affirmative action in my country has led to an overall decline in competency in many fields, and a brain drain of the people who are marginalized to neighboring countries and beyond. With every passing year, my country is surpassed by other countries in the region.
The feedback loop of stomping on meritocracy (where ascribed qualities like skin color or race are elevated over competence) is self-reinforcing. Our politics has gotten worse, we're getting less and less competitive by the day, and competitive forces are eating our lunch. We may have a more equal pie, but we got there by pulling everybody down so our pie is smaller. The society feels stagnant and continues to degrade. This is my lived experience.
The country next to us has also achieved low racial strife, but they adopted much more directed and -- I dare to say -- more social darwinist policies. They are economically much more successful than we are, and much more dynamic than we are, even though we both started out with similar initial conditions.
I do think we need to have a society where everyone has an equal shot at social mobility. However I also believe that affirmative action is too blunt an instrument for achieve that and it is one that creates vicious feedback loops that are politically difficult to get out of even when it's clear its usefulness is over.
So no, I'm not a big fan of affirmative action as it is conceived here in this article. To achieve a more equal society you cannot merely force equality by tweaking the gates, because (1) there's irreducible variance among humans that you quell at your own peril, (2) some of those gates are important -- remember Chesterton's fence. It's clear to me that a more thoughtful approach than affirmative action (or even a more thoughtful kind of affirmative action) is needed.