I first saw the Pixar short, Bao, a while back, but recently revisited the story after purchasing the Little Golden Books (I didn’t think they still existed – I only checked after watching the season premiere of This is Us, where, in a flashback scene, Rebecca reads one to the 80s version of The Big Three) version of the story to read to Jr. Mintz. As a refresher, the story centres around a woman of Chinese heritage, living in Toronto (at least we Torontonians think it’s Toronto – what looks like the CN Tower seems pretty prominent and the woman takes a streetcar that resembles one on the TTC) who makes bao – a steamed Chinese bun. The bun comes alive and the woman treats it as if it were her own child. The bao acts human and grows up, becoming more and more rebellious. Bao moves out of the house and gets engaged. At the end, a human resembling a bao knocks on her bedroom door and it’s her real son, all grown up and holding a box of buns (not bao, but baked buns from a Hong Kong or Taiwanese bakery in the city), which they share, just like the old days.
This story could easily have been called Samosa, Ravioli, Pierogi or even Chocolate Chip Cookies or Apple Pie. In other words, it could have been about ANY culture. And I like that. There’s a lot of focus on “diversity” these days, but often, it seems really fake. It’s like, you HAVE to have a white character (usually not ethnic-specific…I mean, where are the characters of say, Italian, Polish or Irish heritage? I don’t see a lot of that, especially Italian or Polish. Sorry, I went to Catholic school for a few years), one black character and another, Asian? And why, with the non-white characters, do they have to emphasize the ethnic/cultural heritages of said characters? Maybe it’s just my circle, but Asians with names like Sophie, Jessica and Michael are more common than names from their ancestral heritages. Many people from my generation can barely read/write their ancestral languages, so why would they only use a cultural name for their child? It rings false to write names out phonetically when you can barely write it (if at all) in its original language if it does not use the roman alphabet (it’s different for a non-Spanish or Italian speaker to name their child Maria). That said, my son has both a “western” name and one in Chinese – one in which I can actually read and write. The latter is not on his official documents. Yet, those involved in adding diversity to books, television shows, movies and so forth seem to be adamant in making it that way. Why? Are children REALLY seeing themselves if it’s done that way? Plus they seem to be very focused on first generation – you know, with parents from the old world.
I think universality, a story like Bao, is much more realistic. It might be presented a certain way, with characters of ONE culture, but it’s easy to relate to if you’re NOT from that background. Think (if you’re NOT looking at something focused on children) My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Diversity isn’t only about seeing/reading about characters that LOOK like you, it’s about characters you can RELATE to. It makes zero sense to me if there’s an Asian character in a book or screen, but they are, I don’t know, a punk rocker who is fifth generation Canadian and has lived on her own since she was 15 years old. I wouldn’t get it. I might find her story interesting, but she has nothing to do with what I can relate to. I probably find more to relate to reading A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (one of my favourite books, by the way) – Francie Nolan’s determination and drive is what many girls should strive to be like. I can probably relate MORE to a 1950s boarding school student who is a second or third generation student at his school. The problem is, many people who want more diversity don’t seem to understand that. They dismiss that. I see it everywhere. And I think it’s sad.
I’m not saying that it’s not important to have characters from a wide range of ethno-religious-cultural backgrounds, I’m just saying that they shouldn’t always make it so stereotypical, so CULTURE FOCUSED. I actually think that, if not done carefully (like they did in Bao), can send out the wrong message. The longer people are here, the more integrated they become – while still retaining portions of their own culture. I’m not really understanding WHY it’s necessary to discuss and focus ONLY on the first generation. Not every person of ABC heritage knows how to, say, make dishes from that culture, for example. Rather, even if they DID – to an extent – they might include elements of flavours from cultures they grew up with. Something like that would be more relatable to someone whose parents are children of immigrants. Unfortunately, that’s not what publishers likely want. In fact, some diversity activists would say that the author who wrote that book needs to be “decolonized.” However, I think that story has more universality – which IS important in an increasingly diverse world – than focusing on the first generation’s culture. It eventually won’t be realistic. Cultures evolve, even in the old world.
Universality is important, regardless of what the background of a character is. I really can’t understand why the big focus is ONLY on one’s appearance. The tendency to “over-fix” diversity these days becomes too fake, too idealized, and, honestly, annoying. It’s like how I’ve (along with fans of the original) been rolling my eyes at and hate-watching And Just Like That…(you can read my post on the show here). To be honest, I’ve stopped hate-watching. I’m sure you can guess why.
Maybe I just live in a different world. But people have to understand that my so-called “world” is still a kind of reality. And it’s highly unfair to dismiss that. Of course, I’m pretty much preaching to a choir. Because people who speak from this perspective are few and far between. Mostly because we fear being cancelled.
