They have explicit quota systems and affirmative action for the official 55 non-Han minorities, and also for people from less wealthy provinces. Sometimes people fake residency in a poorer province to game the system.
The affirmative action programs are largely inconsequential because non-Han only account for 9% of the population. In contrast to DEI in the U.S., where about 45% of the youngest generation belongs to groups that would qualify for racial preferences.
Also, the goal of the Chinese system is assimilation into the Han Chinese dominant culture. And they have reeducation camps for minorities that insist on cultural separatism.
Sociologists will tell you race is a “social construct”. People can wake up tomorrow and start discriminating on the smallest shades you and I wouldn’t care about - in China there’s already a preference for light skin. In the UK they discriminate on accent/location (just within London!), and in China there’s plenty of regional dialects to choose from. Or look at class in the UK.
The point is at the end of the day their govt will build trains to every little village because that’s the consensus, they just don’t call it DEI. Westerners call it “ghost towns”… which then fill up promptly.
Is the China model perfect? Absolutely not. But it makes some strong points
> The point is at the end of the day their govt will build trains to every little village because that’s the consensus, they just don’t call it DEI
“DEI” is the promotion of distinct identities with an emphasis on differences (the “D” means “diversity”). In contrast to assimilating into a common, dominant identity. Investing in underdeveloped geographic regions isn’t DEI at all. I agree the Chinese system is vastly better than what we call DEI.
The consensus in sociology and anthropology is that ethnicity is a social construct. At this point I'd say I'm done here, you need to go take classes ideally, or read a book or talk to a frontier LLM. This is why education is so important, and why republicans hate critical race theory.
It is also true that tens of millions of young adults would like to move to a Tier 1 city to increase their economic prospects, but Beijing does not let them.
I'm trying to figure out how your comment has any relevance to the the coment it's replying to and I can't find it. Is "Han Chinese" a political ideology instead of an ethnic identity and I was just unaware?
It's self-explanatory. People of very different backgrounds can come together to make fair political/economic/social decisions. If you don't get this, it's on you. I literally can't make it any simpler.
So you are in fact claiming that "Han Chinese" is a political ideology rather than an ethnicity? Because that is the only way your point makes any kind of sense.
