Critical Analysis on "Move..Or Else" for April 25th, 2014

Non-Fiction Critical Analysis Blog Post for April 25^th, 2014

“Chinese culture has traditionally been rural-based, once the villages are gone, the culture is gone.”

            “Move…Or Else” by Ian Johnson explains that in China, millions of people are being ordered with their families to move by government officials that show up at their houses. It also explains that these people didn’t get any say about it and about where they were going. Ian also adds that many are forced to give up their jobs and switch schools while their homes get bulldozed. Ian Johnson also implies that this is all in an effort to move China away from an agricultural country government and into an urbanized one. Ian Johnson uses many details and techniques to support this. One of the techniques he uses is that he implies that many, especially those already in urban areas and others who support the government are for the effort for change. He also explains their point of view and plans. For example he says, “The government hopes that the move—one of the largest human relocations in history—will boost the country’s massive economy, which has recently started to slow down.” Another example of this is when he says, “But China’s government says the country needs to urbanize faster. Officials want at least 70 percent of the nation’s 1.4 billion people—the largest population in the world—living in cities by 2025. The idea is that more city-dwellers will mean more people spending money, making China’s economy less dependent on exports for growth.” A third example of this technique is when he quotes one government official saying, “ ‘If half of China’s population starts consuming, growth is inevitable, right now they are living in rural areas, where they do not consume.’” He follows up on his by saying, “Some of the relocated residents like their lives. Yang Huashuai, 25, appreciates the opportunity he’s been given to make his fortune in Huaming. He works as an electrician and a cab driver.” From my understanding of the situation I feel everybody in China’s opinion depends on how much farming is sentimentally important to them. A second detail Johnson uses is he also explains that many more are against the forced relocation. He goes on to also explain their point of view and an argument for their claim. For example he says, “But many worry that the forced migration will create even bigger problems for China for generations to come. Either way, it will change the country forever.” He also explains the very crazy fact that, “In recent years, dozens of people have set themselves on fire rather than move.” Obviously to me, families rarely get sympathy from local officials. Johnson also says, “Rural residents who do move are given free apartments and compensation payments. But for many of them, that isn’t enough to start a new life in the city.” Wei Dushen says, “We know how to farm but not how to work in an office, those [jobs] are for educated people.” He Shifang also says, “There’s nothing to do anymore, up in the mountains we worked all the time. We had pigs and chickens. Here we just sit around.” Obviously, many don’t like the forced relocation. Now to support all of these claims, Ian Johnson makes sure to include facts for the reader to make their opinion and fully understand. For example, “This rapid urbanization means that villages are disappearing at a rate of about 300 a day. In 2000, China had 3.7 million villages, according to research by Tianjin University. By 2010, that figure dropped to 2.6 million. ” A second set of facts he includes are, “Economically, today’s China is a global powerhouse, driven by a manufacturing boom. It sometimes seems like everything Americans buy is made in China—from clothing to cellphones to refrigerators. About 70 percent of goods Walmart sells are made in China. In 2010, China surpassed Japan to become the world’s second-biggest economy after the United States; currently has the fastest-growing middle class in the world.” Ian Johnson’s fourth technique is also to support it by adding historically-related facts.  Here is the chunk of history included in the article: “Modern China was born 65 years ago, when Mao Zedong’s Communist forces won a civil war and founded the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Over the next three decades, the country endured great turmoil as Mao’s Communist economic and social policies were implemented. By the time Mao died in 1976, China’s economy was in ruins. In 1978, his successor, Deng Xiaoping, introduced free-market reforms that opened up the economy and led to three decades of explosive growth.” To add on to all of this, he adds the effect of the whole event.

            With this article, Ian Johnson tried to make the reader think and feel that it’s a true problem and controversial event, what is going on in China. He wants to explain the sides to the controversial event, add facts, include history and describe the effect of the problem to do this. And to achieve all of this Ian Johnson utilizes multiple craft moves. One of the craft moves he uses is using a question as a transition. He says the question, “What does all this have to do with forcing millions of farmers to move into cities?” He says this after describing China’s economy and before explaining how China wants to transform its economy through forcing urbanization. The effect of this is that this is compelling and gets the reader engaged in the topic. The reader answers the question in their head before reading on to see the facts that Johnson includes to truly answer the question. This way they can transition from one topic to the next while connecting and understanding and still staying engaged. Along with a picture of Chinese people doing a traditional dance in traditional Chinese clothing Ian Johnson includes, “Will traditions die out as villages are bulldozed? A new year celebration in eastern China.” This move is to leave the reader to decide their answer after reading the article because it connects to what is written in the article of course. He includes this connecting note in the article, “A government project has catalogued roughly 9,700 examples of ‘intangible cultural heritage’—traditional songs, dances, rituals, martial arts, and theater. About 80 percent of them are rural. As villages are torn down to make room for new cities, many of China’ social traditions are disappearing along with them. There may be no way to get them back. He also quotes Feng Jicai, an author and Chinese scholar, for saying, “Chinese culture has traditionally been rural-based, once the villages are gone, the culture is gone.” I personally believe this summarizes the issue and I believe that Ian Johnson included it specifically at the end of the article to conclude with and to also hint at his own personal opinion without specifically saying it. Another craft that he includes is after talking about China’s economy he includes in the side-bar a comparison of China and the U.S. economy wise. It says that in China the population is 1.4 billion while it’s only 313 million in the U.S. The percentage of the population living in urban areas in China is 51 percent while it’s 82 percent in the U.S. The GDP in China is 13 trillion and in the U.S. it’s 17 trillion. In China the per capita GDP is $9,100 and in the U.S. it’s $51,700. And in China 12 years are spent in school while in the U.S. the average is 17 years. These charts that are included in the sidebar give the reader a visual explanation and comparison of the two economies. He also includes a picture of a hardworking farmer in Huaming plowing land in the shadow of new high-rise apartments. The image just shows how much will be taken away from the Chinese farming culture that is traditional to many Chinese people. Ian Johnson also includes a map on the second page of the article in the Upfront magazine that specifically explains the forced urbanization and exactly what it means for China. It definitely helps the reader better understand the article. The final craft that Ian Johnson uses to achieve getting the reader to believe his claim is giving the reader a situation to picture. He begins the article by saying, “Imagine government officials showing up at your house and ordering your family to move. You don’t get any say about where you’re going. Your parents have to give up their jobs, and you have to switch schools. Then they bulldoze your house. That’s exactly what’s happening to millions of people in China. This helps to put a figurative image in the reader’s mind to see what those that are being forced to move are going through as a result of the situation in China and helps you relate to them, it seems like almost a bias move on the author, Ian Johnson’s hand.

            After reading this article I definitely realized that the situation in other countries is very different than the one in the United States. I couldn’t imagine being forced out of my home and way of life to go in my case do the opposite of what I’m used to, which for me would be farming. So I understand how hard it is on the farmers in China that are being forced to urbanize, especially since for many of them it’s been a way a life for years and has been passed down from generation to generation. Overall, I believe that the article was very well written and crafted and written on such an interesting topic and I’m sure that it has shaped my thinking, I’m definitely against the forced urbanization especially because it’s just that: forced. And so I also believe I agree with Ian Johnson, because I explained he made slightly biased moves in his writing that pushed me toward the final opinion that I took on the issue.