Mystery and Tragedy in China
May 13, 2010 9:27 AM Subscribe
A recent spate of school attacks in China has left at least 17 people, mostly children, dead. The latest rampage resulted in the deaths of seven children and two adults. Two of the attackers have committed suicide, and a third was executed. All the attackers have been male, although a woman was detained for coming into a youth center with a knife. There is a news blackout in force "in an attempt to prevent more copycat killings." (audio story)
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- frimble
Han Han, one of the country’s most popular bloggers (and a huge irritant to the authorities), wrote that killing the weak was seen by the attackers as the most effective way of exacting revenge on a society “that has no way out”. He said that local governments should send the guards at official buildings to help protect schools, “because a government that can’t protect children doesn’t need so many people to protect itself.”
I'm not a huge fan of the idea of security forces in schools, but it does sound like this would be a good temporary solution while they try to solve the larger problems. At least someone attacking an office building with a knife would have people their own size as their victims, who could fight back more effectively.
posted by hippybear at 9:45 AM on May 13, 2010
I'm not a huge fan of the idea of security forces in schools, but it does sound like this would be a good temporary solution while they try to solve the larger problems. At least someone attacking an office building with a knife would have people their own size as their victims, who could fight back more effectively.
posted by hippybear at 9:45 AM on May 13, 2010
This is strange, isn't it?
Conformation bias is going to create a connection even if it is really just a coinsidence of timing, and four madmen in a population of well over a billion is hardly a spree or a breakdown of society. Even if three of them needed the first act to tip there insanity into action, it doesn't indicate a mass mania, the reaction shows more of that then the incidences. Perhaps it does say something about the media in China, but the coverage of gore is the same in the west, and insane acts happen everywhere. Perhaps it really says more about the nature of the communities, treatment and care of the alienated in both places.
Never the less, when I saw this in the NYT today, my first thought was of Feiffer's play Little Murders.
posted by Some1 at 9:52 AM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
Conformation bias is going to create a connection even if it is really just a coinsidence of timing, and four madmen in a population of well over a billion is hardly a spree or a breakdown of society. Even if three of them needed the first act to tip there insanity into action, it doesn't indicate a mass mania, the reaction shows more of that then the incidences. Perhaps it does say something about the media in China, but the coverage of gore is the same in the west, and insane acts happen everywhere. Perhaps it really says more about the nature of the communities, treatment and care of the alienated in both places.
Never the less, when I saw this in the NYT today, my first thought was of Feiffer's play Little Murders.
posted by Some1 at 9:52 AM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
Following Han Han: this seems like a sickness on a societal level. Then I think about how many innocent children are murdered everyday here in the States and I begin to despair. Tragic.
posted by barrett caulk at 9:53 AM on May 13, 2010
posted by barrett caulk at 9:53 AM on May 13, 2010
In a country with a 1 child policy, I wonder if this may partly be the reasoning for targeting children. Isn't that how you lash out at a society? By zeroing in on it's most precious commodity?
posted by cazoo at 9:56 AM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by cazoo at 9:56 AM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
Conformation bias is going to create a connection even if it is really just a coinsidence of timing
Yea, once you notice the first knife attack on a school, everything looks like a knife attack on a school.
(Fun fact: Not every cognitive bias is confirmation bias! Advanced users can apply this to their AskMe answers)
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:05 AM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
Yea, once you notice the first knife attack on a school, everything looks like a knife attack on a school.
(Fun fact: Not every cognitive bias is confirmation bias! Advanced users can apply this to their AskMe answers)
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:05 AM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
In a country with a 1 child policy, I wonder if this may partly be the reasoning for targeting children. Isn't that how you lash out at a society? By zeroing in on it's most precious commodity?
Until this new female perp, I suspected this was more likely male backlash to the gender imbalanced caused by the 1 child policy. A large number of Chinese men will simply never date, marry or have a child.
posted by 2bucksplus at 10:09 AM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
Until this new female perp, I suspected this was more likely male backlash to the gender imbalanced caused by the 1 child policy. A large number of Chinese men will simply never date, marry or have a child.
posted by 2bucksplus at 10:09 AM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
When does "less access to weapons" ever happen in the US? It's always "less access to videogames/rap/heavy metal" isn't it? And TBH, though this is horrendous, the numbers are tiny compared with school attacks in the US where guns are prevalent.
posted by Artw at 10:33 AM on May 13, 2010
posted by Artw at 10:33 AM on May 13, 2010
Attacking schoolkids and preschoolers is a common theme for mass-murderers. The Dunblane Massacre and Brenda-Anne Spencer come immediately to mind, as well as the San Ysidro massacre - at its core another attack on children. It's not a uniquely Chinese thing, but with a population of 1.5bln and an intense media culture, the likelihood of copycat crimes is very high.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:43 AM on May 13, 2010
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:43 AM on May 13, 2010
People are always going to flip out occasionally and do something horrific. It's just something that happens. These attacks are probably copycat killers, though. Even if there's no news about it on official sources, people are going to be spreading rumors like crazy.
posted by delmoi at 10:50 AM on May 13, 2010
posted by delmoi at 10:50 AM on May 13, 2010
I can't even begin to imagine the pain those children experienced.
This causes me infinite sadness.
.
posted by empatterson at 10:56 AM on May 13, 2010
This causes me infinite sadness.
.
posted by empatterson at 10:56 AM on May 13, 2010
.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:05 AM on May 13, 2010
posted by shakespeherian at 11:05 AM on May 13, 2010
We happened to be in China at the same time as the court's (death) sentencing of the man who suddenly killed eight children (stabbing them with a knife as they arrived at the school gate), & badly injuring five more, at a primary school in "East China's Fujian province" in March - and I still have the English China Daily newspaper, which carried a lengthy report.
He was 41, unmarried with "no history of mental illness"and was described as a "former community doctor" .
He told the court "I'm willing to shoulder the responsibility for what I did, but only for 30 per cent. The other 70 per cent should go to the woman who dumped me."
From the report: "The middle-aged man, considered a loner by others, appeared agitated in court where he repeatedly told judges that he had been turned down by a woman and suffered unfair treatment from her wealthy family, which prompted him to carry out the attack." He said the judge should "pay more attention to what prompted him to commit the crime, than the crime itself."
The families received (USA $38,100) in compensation for each child from the government.
One father said he was also angry at the school authorities - saying there had been no apology, but instead.."They kept emphasizing the accident happened outside the school."
The man's family (I assume they mean his parents) had apparently moved away from the area after the killing.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 11:12 AM on May 13, 2010
He was 41, unmarried with "no history of mental illness"and was described as a "former community doctor" .
He told the court "I'm willing to shoulder the responsibility for what I did, but only for 30 per cent. The other 70 per cent should go to the woman who dumped me."
From the report: "The middle-aged man, considered a loner by others, appeared agitated in court where he repeatedly told judges that he had been turned down by a woman and suffered unfair treatment from her wealthy family, which prompted him to carry out the attack." He said the judge should "pay more attention to what prompted him to commit the crime, than the crime itself."
The families received (USA $38,100) in compensation for each child from the government.
One father said he was also angry at the school authorities - saying there had been no apology, but instead.."They kept emphasizing the accident happened outside the school."
The man's family (I assume they mean his parents) had apparently moved away from the area after the killing.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 11:12 AM on May 13, 2010
Two attackers, including the man who carried out Wednesday's assault, committed suicide while another has been executed.
Huh? This sets a bad precedent for police-assisted suicide, imo.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:17 AM on May 13, 2010
Huh? This sets a bad precedent for police-assisted suicide, imo.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:17 AM on May 13, 2010
In a country with a 1 child policy, I wonder if this may partly be the reasoning for targeting children. Isn't that how you lash out at a society? By zeroing in on it's most precious commodity?
In a country with that many people, people are not a precious commodity. The one child policy is to prevent their country from collapsing. It is necessary and not a factor here.
I remember during the earthquake a while back, a network news reporter covered the schools that crushed all the kids and offered a back-handed criticism of China by bringing up the one child law. As if having more than one kid made the death toll less tragic. "Well, at least I have a spare."
posted by CarlRossi at 11:27 AM on May 13, 2010
In a country with that many people, people are not a precious commodity. The one child policy is to prevent their country from collapsing. It is necessary and not a factor here.
I remember during the earthquake a while back, a network news reporter covered the schools that crushed all the kids and offered a back-handed criticism of China by bringing up the one child law. As if having more than one kid made the death toll less tragic. "Well, at least I have a spare."
posted by CarlRossi at 11:27 AM on May 13, 2010
In a country with that many people, people are not a precious commodity.
This is an offensive comment. I do not for a moment believe that the Chinese value their children any less because there are a lot of Chinese.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:32 AM on May 13, 2010 [6 favorites]
This is an offensive comment. I do not for a moment believe that the Chinese value their children any less because there are a lot of Chinese.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:32 AM on May 13, 2010 [6 favorites]
The idea that a 1 child policy is wrong is offensive.
The implication is that if it didn't exist, these attrocities would be somehow less awful.
posted by CarlRossi at 11:38 AM on May 13, 2010
The implication is that if it didn't exist, these attrocities would be somehow less awful.
posted by CarlRossi at 11:38 AM on May 13, 2010
Hmm. Whose to say if it's down to population numbers, but it does seem to be a consistant aspect of the PRC that human lives seem to be held as a less important thing than, say, the collective face of the PRC. You definately get the impression that if news of a lot of people dying leaked out from China, the outside attitude would be to outraged at the loss of life, the Chinese attitude would be to be outraged that people were covering the story.
posted by Artw at 11:42 AM on May 13, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:42 AM on May 13, 2010 [3 favorites]
If only all those children were allowed to carry guns... clearly this would have been prevented!
Snark aside, this is kinda par for the course for people flipping out. It's about taking out a lot of people with you, in a public manner.
posted by yeloson at 11:43 AM on May 13, 2010
Snark aside, this is kinda par for the course for people flipping out. It's about taking out a lot of people with you, in a public manner.
posted by yeloson at 11:43 AM on May 13, 2010
The idea that a 1 child policy is wrong is offensive.
Oh, yeah. It's awesome when a government takes control of women's reproductive rights.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:45 AM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
Oh, yeah. It's awesome when a government takes control of women's reproductive rights.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:45 AM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
Yep. I remember reading that Mao said something like "Let America nuke us. Even if they kill 100 million of us, we've still got a billion left." I'm having trouble finding a cite for it now, and it's very like apocryphal or at least exaggerated, but his actions certainly matched those words.
posted by kmz at 11:47 AM on May 13, 2010
posted by kmz at 11:47 AM on May 13, 2010
the Chinese government's attitude would be to be outraged that people were covering the story.
Fixed that for you.
posted by yeloson at 11:47 AM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
Fixed that for you.
posted by yeloson at 11:47 AM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
Oh, yeah. It's awesome when a government takes control of women's reproductive rights.
I agree with you there, but consider a starving 1.3 billion population becoming a starving 3.9 billion population in one generation. Do you expect their government to do nothing? I would prefer a voluntary social change, but no one would do it, so the government needed to step in to protect them from themselves. Unless overpopulation isn't a real problem, then in that case, they're overstepping their bounds.
Also, they can have more kids, they just get fined for each additional... (Last I checked anyway.)
posted by CarlRossi at 11:57 AM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
I agree with you there, but consider a starving 1.3 billion population becoming a starving 3.9 billion population in one generation. Do you expect their government to do nothing? I would prefer a voluntary social change, but no one would do it, so the government needed to step in to protect them from themselves. Unless overpopulation isn't a real problem, then in that case, they're overstepping their bounds.
Also, they can have more kids, they just get fined for each additional... (Last I checked anyway.)
posted by CarlRossi at 11:57 AM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
I dunno about that - it's definitely going to be the governments position, but various vox pop's will show the general population echoing it. On the other hand, speaking out against what will be the default position of the goverment is probably a bad idea there.
posted by Artw at 11:59 AM on May 13, 2010
posted by Artw at 11:59 AM on May 13, 2010
(And I'll happily admit I know bog all about China bar what I hear on the news, but it;s been consistant in any China story)
posted by Artw at 12:00 PM on May 13, 2010
posted by Artw at 12:00 PM on May 13, 2010
You definately get the impression that if news of a lot of people dying leaked out from China, the outside attitude would be to outraged at the loss of life, the Chinese attitude would be to be outraged that people were covering the story.
This isn't a Chinese thing, either. See the US's right-winger reaction to the civilian death toll in the Iraq War, torture of detainees, etc, etc.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:05 PM on May 13, 2010 [4 favorites]
This isn't a Chinese thing, either. See the US's right-winger reaction to the civilian death toll in the Iraq War, torture of detainees, etc, etc.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:05 PM on May 13, 2010 [4 favorites]
On the other hand, speaking out against what will be the default position of the goverment is probably a bad idea there.
Speaking from knowing folks over there, there's a lot of dissent, it just doesn't make the news. There's been thousands of demonstrations (or, "revolts") in the last couple of years even.
Chinese culture deeply values children (yes, even where there's abusive family dynamics, children are seen as a status booster), so people WANT to know about this.
posted by yeloson at 12:13 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
Speaking from knowing folks over there, there's a lot of dissent, it just doesn't make the news. There's been thousands of demonstrations (or, "revolts") in the last couple of years even.
Chinese culture deeply values children (yes, even where there's abusive family dynamics, children are seen as a status booster), so people WANT to know about this.
posted by yeloson at 12:13 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
In a country with that many people, people are not a precious commodity. The one child policy is to prevent their country from collapsing. It is necessary and not a factor here.That's pretty insane.
posted by delmoi at 1:02 PM on May 13, 2010
There is a news blackout in force "in an attempt to prevent more copycat killings."
Metafilter: Doing its part to kill children.
posted by coolguymichael at 1:02 PM on May 13, 2010
Metafilter: Doing its part to kill children.
posted by coolguymichael at 1:02 PM on May 13, 2010
Oh, yeah. It's awesome when a government takes control of women's reproductive rights.
I don't have a good answer here but I reject the idea that your attitude is a good answer either. Given a population of a billion people who are having a bunch of kids each, how would you prevent (further) famine and mass poverty in one generation. Education and so forth is a long term answer, yes, but it had to happen immediately.
The one child policy is a violation of individual rights. Not implementing a policy to reduce birthrates would have resulted in tens of millions of deaths, at the lower boundary. That you can write off those real, human deaths with a simplistic and facile bumper sticker slogan says to me that you haven't thought about it very deeply.
My own opinion is that requiring people (both men AND women) to have only one child is in subtle but real and significant ways less of a violation of rights than requiring a women who is already pregnant to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy. It's still a bad thing, but it is somewhat less bad that the latter. And may indeed be preferable to widespread horrific mass starvation. But I'm not sure of that position and it's a troublesome one. I do know, however, that it is at least a position I've thought about and which can't be reduced to a bumper sticker.
posted by Justinian at 1:33 PM on May 13, 2010 [4 favorites]
I don't have a good answer here but I reject the idea that your attitude is a good answer either. Given a population of a billion people who are having a bunch of kids each, how would you prevent (further) famine and mass poverty in one generation. Education and so forth is a long term answer, yes, but it had to happen immediately.
The one child policy is a violation of individual rights. Not implementing a policy to reduce birthrates would have resulted in tens of millions of deaths, at the lower boundary. That you can write off those real, human deaths with a simplistic and facile bumper sticker slogan says to me that you haven't thought about it very deeply.
My own opinion is that requiring people (both men AND women) to have only one child is in subtle but real and significant ways less of a violation of rights than requiring a women who is already pregnant to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy. It's still a bad thing, but it is somewhat less bad that the latter. And may indeed be preferable to widespread horrific mass starvation. But I'm not sure of that position and it's a troublesome one. I do know, however, that it is at least a position I've thought about and which can't be reduced to a bumper sticker.
posted by Justinian at 1:33 PM on May 13, 2010 [4 favorites]
The attack that left seven children and two adults dead (second link) was prompted by a property dispute.
posted by CCBC at 2:48 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
Wu Huanming [the killer] had rented out his house to Wu Hongying [the school operator] to accommodate the kindergarten, without approval from any government departments.I don't know if "repressive" government is a factor or not but these various killers seem to have had disparate motives for going wingy.
Wu Huanming demanded in April that his house should be vacated when the lease expired, but Wu Hongying said she hoped to return the property in June or July, during the kindergarten vacation.
posted by CCBC at 2:48 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
being limited to a single child is controlling of men's reproductive rights, as well. though they don't carry people inside of their bodies, men are as required to make women as women are to make men. just fyi
posted by KingoftheWhales at 3:12 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by KingoftheWhales at 3:12 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
I love it how, whenever people start defending the CCP's atrocious human rights record, they're like "But they have to - so many people! They didn't have a choice! Silly commoners don't know what's good for them!", whilst conveniently ignored the other, billion+ people nation that actually borders China, and has democracy, and a whole lot more besides.
Now, I'm not trying to paint India as some kind of Shangri-La here, but the idea that - if you have a lot of people in one country - there's only one way of doing things (i.e. without democracy, without rule of law, etc etc) is pretty naive and definitely ill-informed.
You can argue the merits or no of the one child policy till the cows come home, but to posit it as the only option available - or even the best option available - is extremely contentious. It's an interesting discussion point, and you can certainly make the case, but to act like it's a self-evident good demonstrates to me someone that has drunk the CCP's Kool-aid, has trouble separating the CCP from the people of China, and has a limited understanding of the country.
This story - like so many stories in China - is very hard to assess because everything we see about China in the west is so mediated by lots of different factors, some deliberate, some systemic, and some cultural (both the culture of the west, and the culture of China), that I would be really reluctant to say what underlies it, if it's new, what it means etc. I will leave that to those more qualified to comment.
posted by smoke at 6:00 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
Now, I'm not trying to paint India as some kind of Shangri-La here, but the idea that - if you have a lot of people in one country - there's only one way of doing things (i.e. without democracy, without rule of law, etc etc) is pretty naive and definitely ill-informed.
You can argue the merits or no of the one child policy till the cows come home, but to posit it as the only option available - or even the best option available - is extremely contentious. It's an interesting discussion point, and you can certainly make the case, but to act like it's a self-evident good demonstrates to me someone that has drunk the CCP's Kool-aid, has trouble separating the CCP from the people of China, and has a limited understanding of the country.
This story - like so many stories in China - is very hard to assess because everything we see about China in the west is so mediated by lots of different factors, some deliberate, some systemic, and some cultural (both the culture of the west, and the culture of China), that I would be really reluctant to say what underlies it, if it's new, what it means etc. I will leave that to those more qualified to comment.
posted by smoke at 6:00 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't have a good answer here but I reject the idea that your attitude is a good answer either. Given a population of a billion people who are having a bunch of kids each, how would you prevent (further) famine and mass poverty in one generation.
Look, I question your assumptions here.
You claim:
The one child policy succeeded in preventing further famine and mass poverty in one generation.
Underlying this claim are two assumptions:
1. The one child policy successfully reduced population growth in areas of China plagued by poverty and famine.
2. This reduced population growth led to reduced poverty and malnutrition.
To assumption 1, I would argue that implementation of the one child policy in rural China has been uneven to nonexistent. These totalitarian social control policies simply do not translate to the provinces, where the central government has almost no direct control. Reproductive policies there are and have been up to the whim of local officials.
Where population growth has slowed, it has been the result of urbanization. And urbanization reduces population growth with or without totalitarian social policies and their associated harm to the liberty of individuals and families.
To assumption 2, I would argue that the reduction of poverty and malnutrition in China has been largely the result of improved agricultural and economic policies. The famines of the 60s were more the consequence of braindead agricultural policies brought about by collectivist ideology than they were the result of some Malthusian nightmare, anyway.
The choice you present between totalitarian control of reproductive rights and economic modernization/urbanization is a false dichotomy. Too many people seem too blithe to slap the authoritarians in Beijing on the back for their apparent successes. They've mostly had good, dumb luck, and have benefited from the fact that their predecessors behaved so abysmally.
On preview, what smoke said.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:10 PM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
Look, I question your assumptions here.
You claim:
The one child policy succeeded in preventing further famine and mass poverty in one generation.
Underlying this claim are two assumptions:
1. The one child policy successfully reduced population growth in areas of China plagued by poverty and famine.
2. This reduced population growth led to reduced poverty and malnutrition.
To assumption 1, I would argue that implementation of the one child policy in rural China has been uneven to nonexistent. These totalitarian social control policies simply do not translate to the provinces, where the central government has almost no direct control. Reproductive policies there are and have been up to the whim of local officials.
Where population growth has slowed, it has been the result of urbanization. And urbanization reduces population growth with or without totalitarian social policies and their associated harm to the liberty of individuals and families.
To assumption 2, I would argue that the reduction of poverty and malnutrition in China has been largely the result of improved agricultural and economic policies. The famines of the 60s were more the consequence of braindead agricultural policies brought about by collectivist ideology than they were the result of some Malthusian nightmare, anyway.
The choice you present between totalitarian control of reproductive rights and economic modernization/urbanization is a false dichotomy. Too many people seem too blithe to slap the authoritarians in Beijing on the back for their apparent successes. They've mostly had good, dumb luck, and have benefited from the fact that their predecessors behaved so abysmally.
On preview, what smoke said.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:10 PM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
Given a population of a billion people who are having a bunch of kids each, how would you prevent (further) famine and mass poverty in one generation?
Oh, and to directly answer your question: Urbanize, urbanize, urbanize. Tilt agricultural policy to discourage subsistence farming (which invariably results in poverty and periodic famines, and has for all of human history) and encourage high-productivity large-scale farms and ranches. Small-scale agriculture is a luxury for rich nations.
Pull the peasants into cities; have them work in light manufacturing, infrastructure development, and, eventually, information technology services. Provide robust and ubiquitous family planning education and easy access to birth control. Educate children, especially girls. Once your population is educated and urban, it will stop growing. Will it take one generation? Probably closer to two or three. But by limiting subsistence agriculture, you've gone a long way towards reducing poverty and malnutrition, which was your ultimate goal in limiting population growth anyway, right?
posted by mr_roboto at 6:24 PM on May 13, 2010
Oh, and to directly answer your question: Urbanize, urbanize, urbanize. Tilt agricultural policy to discourage subsistence farming (which invariably results in poverty and periodic famines, and has for all of human history) and encourage high-productivity large-scale farms and ranches. Small-scale agriculture is a luxury for rich nations.
Pull the peasants into cities; have them work in light manufacturing, infrastructure development, and, eventually, information technology services. Provide robust and ubiquitous family planning education and easy access to birth control. Educate children, especially girls. Once your population is educated and urban, it will stop growing. Will it take one generation? Probably closer to two or three. But by limiting subsistence agriculture, you've gone a long way towards reducing poverty and malnutrition, which was your ultimate goal in limiting population growth anyway, right?
posted by mr_roboto at 6:24 PM on May 13, 2010
Now, I'm not trying to paint India as some kind of Shangri-La here...
Nah, that's Bhutan.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:27 PM on May 13, 2010
Nah, that's Bhutan.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:27 PM on May 13, 2010
Yeah, the one child policy sucks, India is so much better with it's Forced sterilization program. Well that was only for a couple years in the 1970s, but clearly much worse then fining people for having more then one child.
Now, I'm not trying to paint India as some kind of Shangri-La here, but the idea that - if you have a lot of people in one country - there's only one way of doing things (i.e. without democracy, without rule of law, etc etc) is pretty naive and definitely ill-informed.
You can argue the merits or no of the one child policy till the cows come home, but to posit it as the only option available - or even the best option available - is extremely contentious.
posted by delmoi at 7:00 PM on May 13, 2010
Pull the peasants into cities; have them work in light manufacturing, infrastructure development, and, eventually, information technology services.
I already agreed that education (and by extension urbanization) is the long term solution. But you're talking about doing it at a virtually Soviet pace. Which would consist of massive forced relocations and such. Urbanization and voluntary retraining of the workforce is, as you admit, not a rapid process. I think you're being way too optimistic about the timeline.
posted by Justinian at 7:01 PM on May 13, 2010
I already agreed that education (and by extension urbanization) is the long term solution. But you're talking about doing it at a virtually Soviet pace. Which would consist of massive forced relocations and such. Urbanization and voluntary retraining of the workforce is, as you admit, not a rapid process. I think you're being way too optimistic about the timeline.
posted by Justinian at 7:01 PM on May 13, 2010
But you're talking about doing it at a virtually Soviet pace. Which would consist of massive forced relocations and such. Urbanization and voluntary retraining of the workforce is, as you admit, not a rapid process. I think you're being way too optimistic about the timeline.
I'm talking about a Chinese pace. This is what has happened in China, to a large extent. This is what has reduced poverty in China over the past 30 years, much more than the one child policy. There are still a lot of people in peasant situations, but there aren't mass famines, and subsistence farming continues to decline as a way of life. Give it another two generations.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:07 PM on May 13, 2010
I'm talking about a Chinese pace. This is what has happened in China, to a large extent. This is what has reduced poverty in China over the past 30 years, much more than the one child policy. There are still a lot of people in peasant situations, but there aren't mass famines, and subsistence farming continues to decline as a way of life. Give it another two generations.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:07 PM on May 13, 2010
From your own link, Delmoi:
A strong backlash against any initiative associated with family planning followed the highly controversial program, which continues into the 21st century.
Emphasis mine. And, as you say, a couple of years in the seventies - widely regarded as a failure and horrific abuse of human rights. Comparing and contrasting that w/ the One Child Policy is apples and oranges.
posted by smoke at 7:17 PM on May 13, 2010
A strong backlash against any initiative associated with family planning followed the highly controversial program, which continues into the 21st century.
Emphasis mine. And, as you say, a couple of years in the seventies - widely regarded as a failure and horrific abuse of human rights. Comparing and contrasting that w/ the One Child Policy is apples and oranges.
posted by smoke at 7:17 PM on May 13, 2010
In a country with that many people, people are not a precious commodity. The one child policy is to prevent their country from collapsing. It is necessary and not a factor here.
This is a bizarre thing to say. First, "people" are not a precious commodity, but one's own children certainly are. Second, having only one child makes that child perhaps more precious to the parents. Thhird, there's a strong human biological and hormonal impulse to have children; obviously reproduction is a pretty fucking precious commodity. Pun intended.
posted by desuetude at 9:37 PM on May 13, 2010
This is a bizarre thing to say. First, "people" are not a precious commodity, but one's own children certainly are. Second, having only one child makes that child perhaps more precious to the parents. Thhird, there's a strong human biological and hormonal impulse to have children; obviously reproduction is a pretty fucking precious commodity. Pun intended.
posted by desuetude at 9:37 PM on May 13, 2010
5 Men With Knives Slash College Students In Latest China School Attack
posted by homunculus at 11:18 AM on May 19, 2010
posted by homunculus at 11:18 AM on May 19, 2010
« Older Subtropolis, USA | A man, A plan, Unicycle. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by fontophilic at 9:39 AM on May 13, 2010 [3 favorites]