An "interesting" spin to the Earthquake tragedy

[lostness]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24671025/

 

I really didn't like this article. I felt like it was an inappropriate dig at China when they're down. I thought like the whole purpose of the article was to re-hash:

 

"The "one-child policy" has been contentious inside China as well as out. The government says it has prevented an additional 400 million births. But critics say it has also led to forced abortions, sterilizations and a dangerously imbalanced sex ratio as local authorities pursue sometimes severe birth quotas set by Beijing and families abort girls out of a traditional preference for male heirs. The policy is law but there are exceptions."

 

Anyway, I'm not surprised, but I am disgusted. I mean what was the Associated Press suggesting, if they had more kids, its somehow less of a tragedy because they'd have a spare?

[GZBILL]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24671025/

 

I really didn't like this article. I felt like it was an inappropriate dig at China when they're down. I thought like the whole purpose of the article was to re-hash:

 

"The "one-child policy" has been contentious inside China as well as out. The government says it has prevented an additional 400 million births. But critics say it has also led to forced abortions, sterilizations and a dangerously imbalanced sex ratio as local authorities pursue sometimes severe birth quotas set by Beijing and families abort girls out of a traditional preference for male heirs. The policy is law but there are exceptions."

 

Anyway, I'm not surprised, but I am disgusted. I mean what was the Associated Press suggesting, if they had more kids, its somehow less of a tragedy because they'd have a spare?

 

No law that prevents reporters from being morons. The only reason they write about things they know nothing about is so they can continue to make their mortgage payments.

[Sebastian]

I did not see the article you are referring to, but I do recall the one-child rule being mentioned today on CNN . I view it as adding to the sorrow - is unequivacably that one child.

 

For about 2.5 generations there, till now, this 'one-child' receives all attention from his/her family, is treated like a demi-god. I'm not mentioning this to complain about it - thats the way it is - what would you do in a chinese couple's shoes? you are limited to that one child - that one child is everything to you and your wife - you must ensure that it can grow up and participate in the Chinese National Way of Life.

 

MANY chinese couples , thinking to better their one child's life, take jobs in other cities, move to these other cities, but park that one child with grandma, and send MOST of their money home to her, to care for that ONE CHILD. Then during Spring Festival - they go home for one week, to visit with their ONE CHILD. Most ppl in guangdong province could not go north this year to see their one child because of the freakish snow storms blocking the train routes in central china.

 

I can't really agree with the flip side of your assessment, but I can see how it might be taken as 'gospel' if ya really underestimate what 'one-child' really means to a couple, usually (now) are both from one-child households themselves.

 

But hey - American news will try to put a spin on it - i have yet to see any 'chinese experts' talking about what this means for China. But maybe I missed it all this week, I dunno, I was glued to tv, flipping channels, mostly stuck on cctv4 /9, cnn worldnews, and cnbc west (which has the greater chinese coverage of all of the cnbc satellite news channels).

 

I'm not really discounting yer pov, I think we actually agree on something here.

Edited May 17, 2008 by Darnell (see edit history)

[homersimpsons]

I guess the reporters don't realize that there were been hundreds of millions of starving Chinese if they didn't have a one child policy. You have only so much resource to feed billions of people. The people in China that have resource to feed an extra mouth also have the resource to have more than 1 kid(bride the local officals).

[Randy W]

In a nutshell, people, the article says

The loss is intensified for those with no other offspring to lavish with care and affection.

 

. . .

 

"I'm 37 years old and my child was 13. If we were to do it again, I'd be 50 when this stage comes along," Bi said.

 

and

 

For them and other couples who lost an only child in this week's massive earthquake, the tragedy has been doubly cruel. Robbed of their sole progeny and a hope for the future, they find it even harder to restart their shattered lives, haunted by added guilt, regret and gnawing loss.

 

. . .

 

Many among the more than 22,000 people killed across central China were students in school. Nearly 6,900 classrooms collapsed, government officials said Friday, in an admission that highlighted a chronically underfunded education system especially in small towns and compounded the anger of many Chinese over the quake.

 

The part quoted by the OP was isolated to one paragraph, by way of explaining the one-child policy. Reporters will often use stock wording for a quick explanation like that.

Edited May 17, 2008 by Randy W (see edit history)

[SheLikesME?]

Never mind the article, what I don't like about the one child is they are a bit to spoiled, like me, a one child

 

or as they used to say an only child I was called

[griz326]

I read it differently than you. I took it to say if the families had more than one child the grief would not be so terrible. However, the reporter's intent could easily be as you read it.

[chilton747]

I read it differently than you. I took it to say if the families had more than one child the grief would not be so terrible. However, the reporter's intent could easily be as you read it.

 

If they had more than one child that died then the grief would be much larger. This is what I thought when I read it.

[IllinoisDave]

The reporter is just laying out facts, just as many other reporters have done regarding the impact of the one-child policy during the coverage of the quake. I'd venture to guess that a lot of people here in the US are unaware of the one-child policy or haven't given any thought to what it's ramifications are now. Pointing it out in the context of showing why many family's grief is compounded doesn't seem like bashing to me.

[lostness]

I read it differently than you. I took it to say if the families had more than one child the grief would not be so terrible. However, the reporter's intent could easily be as you read it.

 

This is the way that I interpreted the article. I just saw this article as a convient excuse for highlighting that China is wrong for have a one-child policy by saying if couple's were allowed to have more than one kid, they wouldn't feel so terrible now because they would still have another child(ren) to take care of them when they're older and to shower their affection on now. I just didn't think this was an apporpriate situation to use to attack the one-child policy, if that is indeed the aim of this article.

I guess I should have mentioned that I am a part-time paranoid conspiracy theorist

Edited May 17, 2008 by ZackinIL (see edit history)

[Jeikun]

Ha, I just read the article before I came to this site today. Interesting coincidence.

 

I didn't take it as some reporter using the disaster as an excuse to attack the one-child policy. As others said, I took it as simply reporting on the tragedy of losing your only child, and that very many Chinese (by law) have only one child.

 

Yes, there was an implication that the one-child policy can be a negative thing in the article, but I don't think shamefully so, or to the point of attacking it.

[IllinoisDave]

The problem with discussing the one-child policy and how it relates to grief in this circumstance is that no matter how many children you have, odds are that they would have been in school and they would have died along with their brother and/or sister and so the grief is compounded.

 

These two subjects do not belong together in the same conversation.

It's part of a unique reality in China. It adds context and humanity to an already tragic situation. It doesn't belong in EVERY conversation, and it isn't in every conversation. But to say it just doesn't belong is a bit much IMHO.

[Randy W]

 

JMHO, How can we help? is the topic that I would hope should be on everyone's mind. Not, how bad could it have been or could it have been better if there were more children....leave that BS to the journalists....they get paid to look stupid....I KNOW that CFL members are above all of that!

 

 

It's precisely articles like these that can help keep the attention of the non-CFL public focused where it should be. CFL, too.

[IllinoisDave]

The problem with discussing the one-child policy and how it relates to grief in this circumstance is that no matter how many children you have, odds are that they would have been in school and they would have died along with their brother and/or sister and so the grief is compounded.

 

These two subjects do not belong together in the same conversation.

It's part of a unique reality in China. It adds context and humanity to an already tragic situation. It doesn't belong in EVERY conversation, and it isn't in every conversation. But to say it just doesn't belong is a bit much IMHO.

 

 

JMHO, How can we help? is the topic that I would hope should be on everyone's mind. Not, how bad could it have been or could it have been better if there were more children....leave that BS to the journalists....they get paid to look stupid....I KNOW that CFL members are above all of that!

Why do they,or we for that matter, look stupid for discussing how the one-child policy affects this story? The article merely mentions the policy in the context of how it's an added tragedy for those affected by it. Those are facts. It mentions that the policy is questionable within China and without. Again, just facts. The article isn't being judgemental nor is anyone here IMHO.

 

There are other threads for "How can we help?" The OP posted this article as a different "spin" on the story. Others then gave their views. What's stupid about that?

 

What I've seen in the media this week has been,for my money, an unprecedented opening up of China by the central government to allow foreign and domestic media to cover one of the biggest stories in China since Tianenmen. And with very little censorship so far.

 

The effect,intended or not, has been an outpouring of sympathy and support from the world community. Donations are pouring in from individuals and countries all over the world. Countries are lined up wanting and waiting to send in whatever help China needs.

 

Just look at the contrast with Myanmar. The human suffering there is just as bad or worse than China. But because the junta isn't allowing the world in or people to put human faces on the disaster, it's people are suffering alone. That's not happening in China, thank goodness.

[georgeandli]

I'll have to go along with Dave's last post. Our gov has it's problems. China has theirs. After the first responders get done, there will be plenty of time to throw the blame around.