Cartoons: Chinese Democracy & Asian Technology - Page 2




 
--
Cartoons: Chinese Democracy & Asian Technology
 
May 19th, 2006  
CABAL
 
 
Cartoons: Chinese Democracy & Asian Technology
Bulldogg, posting in Milforum is not typing an essay. If one would simply type two little setences, all together would still sum up to an informal argument.

Thesis: "Actually the second cartoon is depicting, quite accurately, the disparity in Chinese society."

Supporting Statement: "The fact they have nuclear weapons and ICBM's while 90% of the population still works their plot of land with water buffalo."

Conclusion: "Very Appropos."

If you intend to take this is as a joke.........to be frank, its not a very good one. If you want to joke, please post it in the Joke and Humor section instead. We are here to talk about politics, not jokes.

I'm dissapointed to see Political Discussions that are very serious being treated as a form of Humor.

And lastly I'm not going to revive the "Does Democratic China produce Hitler?" because the topic have seriously gone off topic and this notion is so ludicris that there is no point of arguing about an absurd topic.
May 19th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
It Is A Cartoon... cartoons are NOT serious nor meant to be, it is humour, a joke.
May 19th, 2006  
CABAL
 
 
It is a political Cartoon that has a serious political message.
--
Cartoons: Chinese Democracy & Asian Technology
May 19th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
Ah, like the cartoons of Mohhamed in the Danish press? Cabal, you're a barrel full o' monkeys mate. Thanks for the laugh.

Thanks for the link Ying, checking it out now. I will admit that as it is a government website I am highly suspect of its claims. Even extremely left leaning liberal sites such as this...

Quote:
The gap between the rich and poor in China, which started to widen when Beijing embarked on the pro-market reforms in the late 1970s, has now widened to an unprecedented level. According to a recent study by China’s National Development and Reform Commission, the richest 10% of the country’s urban population control 45% of urban assets while the poorest 10% hold only 1.4%.

According to the China Human Development Report 2005 released by the UN last December, in 2002 the richest 10% of urban dwellers controlled 34% of urban wealth while the poorest 10% held a mere 0.2%. When extended to the richest 20% of the urban population as compared to the poorest 20%, their respective shares in 2002 were 51% v 3.2%.

In the rural areas in 2002, according to the UN’s report, the wealth gaps were less extreme but were still at a high 31% versus 2% between the top and bottom 10% of rural residents and 47% versus 6% between the top and bottom 20%.

Rural dwellers were on average far poorer than their urban counterparts. In 2002, when the rural wealth per capita was 12,638 yuan (about US$1500), the urban wealth figure was 46,134 yuan per head — 3.7 times higher.

Measured by income, the picture has hardly improved. The UN’s Gini coefficient for income distribution, which ranges from zero for perfect income equality to 100 for perfect inequality, rose in China from 28.8 in 1981 to 38.8 in 1995 and 45 in 2002 — a 50% jump in inequality in 20 years.

In 2000, China’s Gini rating was 44.7, far worse than even India which scored 32.5. China’s 2000 rating earned it an embarrassing 90th place in terms of income equality among the 131 countries measured by the UN Development Program.

According to a 2002 survey by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, of China’s richest 10%, urban and rural residents accounted for 93% and 7% respectively, while among the country’s poorest 10%, the urban and rural shares were 1.3% and 98.7% respectively. Commenting on this urban-rural income gap, the UN’s 2005 China report noted that this “is perhaps the highest in the world”.
Going backwards

The UN’s 2005 China report observes: “Compared to the early days of reform, China’s inequality in income distribution has increased sharply. This phenomenon has been noted both in urban and rural areas, between cities, between regions, and between population groups, and is leading to a widening gap in wealth distribution between the rich and the poor.”

Things got particularly worse around two turning points — in the early 1990s, when the Beijing regime sought to “deepen” the reforms (i.e., shifted to a full-on drive to restore capitalism), and since around 1997 when the sweeping privatisations of state enterprises began.

The UN Development Program gauges human development by an index — the Human Development Index — that is a weighted measure of three factors: Life expectancy, education (measured by literacy and formal education enrolment), and economic development (measured by GDP per capita in parity purchasing power).

While China’s average life expectancy at birth increased from 64 years in 1979 to 71 years in 2000, the urban-rural life expectancy gap widened from 3.5 years in 1990 to 5.6 years in 2000.

Despite China’s adult literacy rate rising from 71.9% in 1985 to 84.1% in 2000, net primary school enrolment declined from 94% during 1985-87 to 91% in 1998. Over the 10 years from 1985-87 to 1995-97, public education expenditure stagnated at 2.3% of GNP, though rising slightly from 11.1% of government expenditure to 12.2%.

In contrast, over the same period, India, which is infamous for social inequality, spent 3.2% of GNP on public education and increased such expenses as a percentage of government spending from 8.5% to 11.6%.

China’s primary school enrolment recovered partially to 93% in 2000, but it was still below the mid-1990s level and fell considerably short of the country’s 1993 goal to achieve 100% enrolment for the nine-year compulsory education by 2000.

Moreover, the gap was understated by the fact that China’s National Bureau of Statistics excluded from the calculation of urban income all subsidies in kind that urban residents enjoyed but their rural counterparts didn’t.
Why is disparity widening?

The rural area, where the bulk of China’s population lives, is hit most by the capitalist restoration, with detrimental implications for jobs, health care and education. The lack of local financing has directly contributed to the ramshackle state of education and health care in the rural areas in the wake of the dismantling of the people’s commune system in the 1980s. This is the critical reason why many rural areas in China are mired in a spiral of deepening poverty. It is no accident that problems associated with the rural areas have become a top national issue in China in recent years.

The urban population is better off, but only relatively. Massive privatisation since 1996-97 meant the loss of secure jobs with decent entitlements for many urban workers. Housing, health care and education have once again become a luxury for many urban dwellers, though not as out of reach for them as for their rural counterparts.

The survey, which covered samples in eight major and medium cities (including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou), seven towns and their neighbouring rural areas, revealed that 40-50% of the poor being interviewed named education expenses as the main cause of poverty for their households. In the year to October 2005, education expenses accounted for 32.6% of household expenditure of the rural samples, 25.9% for samples in the major cities, and 23.3% for those in the sampled towns.

Poverty and the lack of jobs have prompted 140 million rural people to flood to the cities to find work. They are excluded from the welfare entitlements available to other urban residents, and can get only the worst jobs, for the worst pay, with 58% of them, according to the UN’s 2005 China report, working seven days a week.

People in China are far from happy with the income disparity. According to the UN report, even though China’s Gini coefficient for income distribution is very close to that of the US, only 65% of US residents concluded that income inequality was too big while those holding this view in China was as high as 95%. The report speculates: “Apparently, people in China and the former socialist countries have a lower tolerance for inequality. In these countries, more than 90 percent of people believed income inequality was too great; and about 80 percent saw their governments as having the responsibility to reduce income inequality.”

From Green Left Weekly, April 12, 2006.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/664/664p24.htm

...run counter to the claims of the government and fit more closely what I have personally observed here.

Now since Cabal insists this is serious and wishes to engage me in debate, or at least from his arrogant language directed at me, appears so, consider this my opening argument ffs...

The second cartoon is very appropriate in that is directed at all of Asia and not any one country. It is an amalgam of Asian nations and a shot at the disparity in their development. The water buffalo is ubiquitous throughout all of Asia as the beast of burden in but not limited to China, India, Pakistan, Burma, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Brunei, PNG etc. The fact remains that in Asia there is an extreme gap between the rural poor and the nouveau riche of the urban scene. The rural poor far outnumber the urbanites and they continue to work their plots of land in overwhelmingly agrarian economies as they have done for hundreds of years. Yet at the same time some of these countries have obtained or developed a nuclear arsenal. This achievement is considered by some to be the litmus test of development for a society and most arguably for the said countries military it is unquestionably the pinnacle achievement as there is no more deadly and final weapon. So to achieve this great height while the majority of your population labours away as they did since the time of Australasian or Peking or Java man is laughable at best deplorable at worst. The political cartoon as a medium is meant to make someone laugh and think at the same time. It is not a mystery to be solved, it is not some cryptic message for the vast masses of 7 second sound bite children of modernity to decode and ponder for hours on end.
May 19th, 2006  
Ollie Garchy
 
 
Jesus H. Christ,

Politics is as much about humour as it is about seriousness. Why? Because the political is human interaction. In any case, the cartoon is probably in reference to Iran's nuclear development, and the artist is bringing up an important issue -- namely a warped Asian priority list.

An example. The 2004 sunami that flooded Asia did extensive damage. India and other countries threw themselves on the mercy of the West and actually complained that we were stingy when the money did not come in like another sunami. Well, did the Indian government rebuild their destroyed regions? Did they help the poor sods who lost everything? Did they erect a sunami detection device? No, they are spending their money on atomic bombs and a space program instead.

The development of nuclear weapons in these countries is insane. Space programs are beyond insane. The problem is so obvious, and it comes out in the comics: the leaders of China or India or other countries are cheating their own people of a worthwhile future. They are evil, corrupt, immoral, satanic...whatever derogatory word you choose to use. Anyone who defends their actions is (1) stupid, (2) brainwashed, (3) or evil himself.

And, you know what? Our majestic leaders are equally insane. If I had any degree of power....I will leave it up to your imaginations.
May 19th, 2006  
CABAL
 
 
Quote:
Ah, like the cartoons of Mohhamed in the Danish press? Cabal, you're a barrel full o' monkeys mate. Thanks for the laugh.

Thanks for the link Ying, checking it out now.
Yes, cartoons now can insult people, make people soo furious thats its no longer funny anymore.
May 19th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
Ok, my reply would be that people, like yourself, are taking the cartoons and themselves far too seriously and that a little more of a sense of humour would go a long way to diffusing problems.

Second, c'mon, what about my argument, c'mon, I wanna play...
May 19th, 2006  
CABAL
 
 
Quote:
The political cartoon as a medium is meant to make someone laugh and think at the same time. It is not a mystery to be solved, it is not some cryptic message for the vast masses of 7 second sound bite children of modernity to decode and ponder for hours on end.
I accept your statement and therefore partially agree that a political cartoon allows a person to "laugh" and think at the same time. Well done.

Quote:
The rural poor far outnumber the urbanites and they continue to work their plots of land in overwhelmingly agrarian economies as they have done for hundreds of years. Yet at the same time some of these countries have obtained or developed a nuclear arsenal.
Unfortunately there are external threats that force poorer nations to engage a series of conflicts with one another and also buildup their military regardless if their general population live in poverty.

If you look at India's Nuclear Program. It comes in three phases:

Phase One: During the Chinese-Indian Border conflict 1962, India was caught unprepared and ill-equipped, therefore losing 14,000 square miles of Indian Territory to the Chinese. During the Cold War, India committed itself to non-alignment therefore it will not ally with the Soviet Union or the United States for security garuantees.

Phase Two: After two years from the Indo-Chinese Border War, China exploded its first nuclear test during October 16, 1964 at Lop Nor. With India neighboring with a country that has Nuclear Weapons, China can easily blackmail India and use its Nuclear Weapons as leverage. In response to the Nuclear Tests, India decided to modernize its conventional force and at the same time develop nuclear weapons. The 1965 Indo-Pakistani War also convinced both sides a need to re-arm themselves.

Phase Three: India carried out its first nuclear test on May 18, 1974 thus by calling it a "Peaceful Nuclear explosion". The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan have allowed Pakistan to gain support and assistance from the United States both economically and militarily. This caused great concerned among Indian Strategic planners. In response to India's new Nuclear Capabilities, Pakistan decided to develop its own Nuclear Weapons program in fear of possible Indian invasion. At the same time, China was also assisting Pakistan in their Nuclear Weapons program.

While people refer Nuclear Weapons as the most terrifying weapons on earth, I'd say Nuclear Weapons are the most powerful weapon in the defense of a nation. The War in Iraq demonstrates that a nation without nuclear weapons can be invaded and a nation with nuclear weapons can not. If Iran does become a Nuclear Power and able to produce delivery systems that able to reach to Europe or Israel, a talk of a military solution against Iran is completely out of the question.

Some believe that Nuclear Weapon Proliferation is a Cold War relic, unfortunately they have miscalculated. No matter how many Nuclear weapons the US, USSR, any other Nuclear armed nations produced, no one dare to use such weapon after Hiroshima.

That is why there is a lot of discussion about Nuclear Weapons should not be in the hands of "rogue nations", nations that do not comply with International regulations.
May 19th, 2006  
yingying
 
Bulldogg your quotes is very good and correct,I do not deny it and I do not doubt it,cause I know it is true.

Also ,you have your rights to doubt or suspect something such as the link I gave out.This is your right.

But please do trust that others are also honest,rightous,generous, equitable,humanbeing.You are not the only one who are gentleman.

Personally I do not think the CCP government have some reason to cheat us in this field.

If you still doubt my first link,try this one::
http://www.xslx.com/htm/jjlc/hgjj/2005-08-09-19081.htm
You will notice that now China is a industrilized country but not a agricultural one.Since it is a industrilized country,so where shall go to find the 90% of the whole population are peansants with water bufflo?
May 19th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
China is a dichotomy. It is industrialised and agrarian at the same time. The majority of the population, even by CCP figures, is engaged in agriculture so I would still classify it as agricultural though undergoing industrialisation. Still some time before it is a predominantly industrialised nation.