|
Page 2 of 2 Natural disasters, in an overpopulated country, show geometrically more numbers of people affected than in a poorly populated or moderately populated country: the effects of Katrina in the US pale in the face of yearly Changjiang (Yangze) flooding or earthquakes, such as the one that wiped out more than 50% of the population of Tangshan in 1977 (that is, more than half a million deaths). The crippling and fatalities resulting from these disasters does not appear to inflict much in the way of decreasing the population; there are still too many to deal with. And of course these natural disasters create homelessness, unemployment and increased poverty which further adds to the woes of the overgrown population that the government is at sixes and sevens to deal with--most ineffectively. Everyone in a natural disaster is affected, though the poorer classes suffer the most. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this very same situation led to revolutions, the Republican government, the Guomindang (Kuomintang) and the rise of Communism.  With overpopulation and the intense competition for jobs, any job, even clothing sales clerk or street side poster-hander-outer, there is a need to create an open space, lessen the tension and anxiety. In a sexist, male dominant society this results in the subjugation of women. They are second class citizens. They are baby-makers--and here China is in paradox since women aren't supposed to make more than one and, thus, they remain in the marketplace--they are pretty things to be pampered and they are paid less if not given the more demeaning jobs, such as street cleaning. Earlier times saw familial abuse as women were only a few steps above the farm donkey or the hamstringing via foot binding: either the women couldn't walk without help or couldn't walk very far. Unfortunately for China, the female birth rate is on the increase, male births declining. True, there will be fewer babies and, therefore, fewer people but there will also be more intense competition in the job market since not all of these women will become mothers or wives. Of course, they could become prostitutes, which would put money back into the economy. No matter what the government attempts, from the one-child policy (which does not work) to the displacement of parts of the population in the name of modernization (such as with the recent damming at Three Gorges) to the fostered resettling in distant, undeveloped parts of the country, the Chinese government inflicts hardship on its people. Further hardship comes from the policy of not allowing emigration: simply getting out of the country on business or for study is difficult. Many who go overseas for research--scientists and educationists--must pay an inordinate amount of money down on their passport, to be reimbursed upon return. Thus, the government is hamstringing itself; for, by letting people go elsewhere they could reduce the overpopulation problem thereby increasing the possibility of gainful employment and upping the level of existence for the rest of the population--and modernize. True, perhaps, with the freedom to move outside the borders there would be an exodus of the intellectually gifted and elite in search of better salaries, better living conditions; but this problem could be easily overcome. The country people, the farmers, can't go abroad: no means. They seem to be kept poor and tied to the land. Besides, if enough farmers or farmers' children left the farm, who would grow the food necessary for survival? There's already a problem with farmer's kids gravitating to the city for the very vague, almost nonexistent possibility of a better life--they are at a distinct disadvantage when competing with the city-bred and educated. This raises the unemployment and destitution. The newly educated, the middle class, the business class, would leave for sure as they are limited in their futures and show a disinclination for creative thinking and development and, thus, an increase in the country's problems. Perhaps this is a justifiable fear, but the solution might be simple enough. Students rich or smart enough will want to leave, as they do now, mostly because their education is so limited, so narrow; but also because of repression, even oppression. With less repression, less punitive control over what is learned, what is possible to learn, perhaps students would not wish so fervently to become immigrants. And businessmen, who hold the purse strings of the country, would prefer to remain at home. But everyone else? Let them go West, old man. Reduce overpopulation, increase productivity and modernization. But, alas, the people cannot leave. Overpopulation, then, is the cause of many of the ills within Chinese society. Since this is the case, why is it that China, the Chinese government, that is, the CCP, forbids people emigrating? To keep itself overpopulated only hinders its development, if indeed modernization is development. To maintain overpopulation mandates poverty and Third World status no matter what. Why would the government not wish to better the situation of its citizens? There must be some gain from keeping its people poor, destitute, cynical and self-destructive. Could it be that because of this overpopulation and limitation of modernization that the government --not the people, you understand--benefits? If so, is not the Chinese government simply continuing the anti-humane, people-as-things (to be used), linear thinking that is presently tearing the world apart? What, indeed, has China learned from history even as it prides itself as having a great historical sensibility? Why is China hamstringing itself?
======================  Jimsecor is a freelance writer who has travelled extensively overseas, especially Japan and China. He has published in all genre and produced several plays over the years and has taught theatre, writing and literature.
{moscomment] Recommend this article...
 Quote this article on your site | Views: 1787
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4
Tags: James L. Secor How China is Hamstringing Itself
|
Commentary 
