NY Times Opinion piece on China

[griz326]

It is by David Brooks:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/opinion/.../David%20Brooks

 

 

I'll be interested in your comments.

[jim_julian]

It's an interesting piece and insofar as I have direct knowledge of China I see no big conflicts with what he says. Of course, it is a generalization and I'm sure exceptions can be found.

 

My knowledge of China is limited, however, and some who live there may have more direct experience and insight.

[Shenzhen K-1]

It's an interesting piece and insofar as I have direct knowledge of China I see no big conflicts with what he says. Of course, it is a generalization and I'm sure exceptions can be found.

 

My knowledge of China is limited, however, and some who live there may have more direct experience and insight.

 

Jim both of us have a little "princess' I find mine delightful!!

[rogerluli]

Of course, it is a generalization and I'm sure exceptions can be found.

 

 

 

'ya sure Jim...

 

 

Sorry I didn't find it very interesting at all...

[Corbin]

My question to this is when did they institute the one child law? Because m SO comes from a big family. If I remember right she is the youngest of 3 or 4 children, which I think would be considered a big family in China now. Though I may be wrong about that. So you have a time frame, she is 34 and her dad is I believe 80. Now her dad did work in government so I don't know if that makes a difference on how many children you can have or not.

[GZBILL]

My question to this is when did they institute the one child law? Because m SO comes from a big family. If I remember right she is the youngest of 3 or 4 children, which I think would be considered a big family in China now. Though I may be wrong about that. So you have a time frame, she is 34 and her dad is I believe 80. Now her dad did work in government so I don't know if that makes a difference on how many children you can have or not.

 

The policy was instituted under Deng Xiao Ping sometime in the 80's, I believe. At first it was rather loosely enforced until about the 90's when it was enforced rather strictly in rural areas while in urban areas it was hit & miss. However, even though in rural areas enforcement was harsh, not all who broke the policy were caught. Most locals will tell you that only the poorest and stupidest were forced to obey the policy since those with a little cash could simply carry the child to term outside of their village / not afford to pay the fines and buy a "hukou" for the newborn child or those who were clever could use political connections or one of a variety of tricks to get around the one-child policy.

 

For the past few years, the central government has been cracking down on provinces who have an unsatisfactory record of enforcing population control. One of the laxest provinces used to be Guangdong, but now they are taking steps to appease the central government. That's not to say that clever people can still get around the policy, but when they find that they can't then get around the "hukou" policy, the government ultimately puts the screws to them. Gone are the days in Guangdong when you can easily buy a "hukou" for $5,000.

[I love Sunshine]

The key point of this article is that China will sell its soul to protect the social order.

 

In other words, if you citizens cause no riots or upheavals of the government officials, we will look the other way to anything you wish to do -- unless other foreign countries complain. We have to save face after all.

 

China is more capitalistic than the USA in many ways. Very lassiez-faire. Charity is virtually non-existent. Everything outside of your family or your friends is simply not your business and no need to get involved. Selfish behavior abounds -- and will get worse with the next generation (those little emperors born 1980 and afterwards).

 

Many of these views are shared by the average Chinese citizen on the street, not simply by people on the outside looking in. Ask your SO his or her viewpoint.

[GZBILL]

The key point of this article is that China will sell its soul to protect the social order.

 

In other words, if you citizens cause no riots or upheavals of the government officials, we will look the other way to anything you wish to do -- unless other foreign countries complain. We have to save face after all.

 

Given China's history from the earliest days of the first dynasty, I'd say social order is a fundamental factor in ensuring the country's continued existence.

 

Governing 1.3+ billion people, the vast majority of them poor and uneducated, cannot be easy and the last thing anybody inside or outside of China needs is another in a long string of peasant revolutions that destabilize and plunge the country into chaos.

[IllinoisDave]

Brooks seems to be kind of obsessed with what he calls the "memorization-based elite" and whether they can organize an innovative information society. Given our own current "teach the test" mentality forced on our education system via "No Child Left Behind," maybe we should have the same concerns.

[Guest Mike and Lily]

I think the article has some basis in fact, however it is cynical in nature gives the reader the impression that China is a society built on nepotism and cronyism. Certainly there is much of that in China as well as the USA, but I do believe China is making a legitimate effort to minimize that. If you want prime examples of that, try going to the Philippines or other asian countries where corruption is much more rampant.

[GZBILL]

I think the article has some basis in fact, however it is cynical in nature gives the reader the impression that China is a society built on nepotism and cronyism. Certainly there is much of that in China as well as the USA, but I do believe China is making a legitimate effort to minimize that. If you want prime examples of that, try going to the Philippines or other asian countries where corruption is much more rampant.

 

Truer words were never spoken.

[jim_julian]

Of course, it is a generalization and I'm sure exceptions can be found.

 

 

 

'ya sure Jim...

 

 

Sorry I didn't find it very interesting at all...

 

Huh?? We are all entitled to our opinions Roger ...

[Guest nanningbob]

The key point of this article is that China will sell its soul to protect the social order.

 

In other words, if you citizens cause no riots or upheavals of the government officials, we will look the other way to anything you wish to do -- unless other foreign countries complain. We have to save face after all.

 

China is more capitalistic than the USA in many ways. Very lassiez-faire. Charity is virtually non-existent. Everything outside of your family or your friends is simply not your business and no need to get involved. Selfish behavior abounds -- and will get worse with the next generation (those little emperors born 1980 and afterwards).

 

Many of these views are shared by the average Chinese citizen on the street, not simply by people on the outside looking in. Ask your SO his or her viewpoint.

 

Having lived in China for some time, China and the average person in the street has already sold it's soul for economic reward and favor and is always looking to do so again at any opportunity. Each small town and burrough has its own gang that wants a taste: the local party members. It is the click or elite of each town or burrough that controls it's inhabitants for the good of 'them', the elite. It has nothing to do about idealology. It is about power and money. Beijing is too far away to stop their habits over centuries. The average people look the other way because they want to keep their stall spaces or their city jobs. The people have been taught not to interfere with the 'order' to protect someone else. The people are aware that they have no control over the politics of their town, their street, or their house so why get involved. Getting involved in a lost cause for yourself or someone else does not put rice on the table. Selfishness truly abounds. Get used to it....

[chef4u]

I think the article has some basis in fact, however it is cynical in nature gives the reader the impression that China is a society built on nepotism and cronyism. ........

 

Funny....I was thinking this point brings back the infamous, "Chicago Style of Governemnt", as run by the late Richard Daley. Specifically, the sixties. Then, I think of my first visit to China. My impressions upon my return, was a society that was living life they way we did in the sixties. Ahh...the good old days...

[Cerberus]

Brooks seems to be kind of obsessed with what he calls the "memorization-based elite" and whether they can organize an innovative information society. Given our own current "teach the test" mentality forced on our education system via "No Child Left Behind," maybe we should have the same concerns.

Just to add my 2 fen to this conversation, after reading this article I do agree with IllinoisDave. However, I would go further to state that D. Brooks didn¡¯t in my opinion thoroughly research his argument. I would definitely agree with IllinoisDave that he (D Brooks) is really ¡°wrapped around the axle¡± in regard to elitists in China

 

¡°Chinese ruling elite recruits talent the way the N.B.A. does ¡ª rigorously, ruthless, in a completely elitist manner.¡±

 

Duhhhhh We aren¡¯t doing the same thing with entrance exams in the US? (e.g. MIT, most given medical schools in the and CalTech, just from the top of my head). Look at the problems (selection and/or recruitment, suicide rates, etc) that he rails against. This same system has been in us in the educational systems in the countries of Korea, Japan and Taiwan for the last 35 years when I first began my second overseas tour of duty in 1976, in Republic of Korea. They were and still are using the same system he alludes to as something new and an evil in China.

 

The closest analogy I could think of when I lived in several oriental countries and observed their educational system. To myself it resembled a upside down funnel. In order for one to succeed and gain entry through the small opening; You had to succeed required education, test and eventually become a corporate team player. Otherwise, you simply remained with the others in the funnel that couldn't succeed ("get through the opening."). IMHO, the US has the same funnel. It simply has a larger opening than in other countries.

 

BTW, David Brooks hasn¡¯t been selected in the same manner? Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(author), for his educational background. Yessss, Australia does use the same selection process as the big schools in the US.

 

[¡°Your life is governed by the rules of the corpocracy. Teamwork is highly valued. There are no real ideological rivalries, but different social networks compete for power and wealth. And the system does reward talent. The wonderfully named Organization Department selects people who have proven their administrative competence.¡±]¡­

 

Right! The Australian educational system doesn¡¯t select people in the same manner as China and Japan? What was the biblical adage¡­Remove the log from your own eye, before you remove the splinter from your brother¡¯s eye?

 

From Wikpedia: ¡°¡­Brooks currently is a professor of Australian Literature at the University of Sydney¡­.¡± Yes folks! D. Brooks doesn¡¯t belong to any corporate structure being a professor and isn¡¯t a team player at the University. After all, his name was simply ¡°drawn from the proverbial hat!¡±

 

IMHO, this is mere sensationalist journalism. I see about five different things that he alludes to. He has done his own sins in three of them. Yet he would cast stones in his own glass house?

 

My largest question is what social ill is he attempting to correct? China¡¯s or the world¡¯s?