Comments for China Population

Comment on China’s Changing Population by Patrick Mcnally

Patrick Mcnally — Tue, 15 May 2012 19:34:11 +0000

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful

Flawed classic, October 28, 2009

This review is from: China's Changing Population (Paperback)

This can be fairly noted as a landmark book, and is generally more worthy of study before most of what passes today as publications on China. Because the book deals more in attempts to assemble and analyze data, it's easier for the inquisistive reader to pick out and identify the essential core than is possible with many more well-promoted books that obfuscate details. A book of this type exhibits the miniumum bias on a topic which is so badly ideologically skewed.

An obvious consequence of this book's data is that it allows us to throw out lying hoaxers like Jung Chang or Jean-Louis Margolin, and it makes clear the general shape of the picture in which events take place. According to Banister's reconstruction of mortality trends in China, she assigns a death rate of 38 per thousand for the year 1949, she then maps out a steady drop in mortality rates down to 18.12 per thousand by the year 1957, followed by a slight rise to 20.65 in 1958, another small increment to 22.06 in 1959, a steep jump to 44.6 in 1960, a drop back down to 23.01 in 1961, a further drop to 14.02 in 1962, followed by a resumption in a slow decline of annual mortality. This overall pattern matches exactly with what is generally known about Chinese mortality patterns following the revolution: a sharp drop in general death rates among the population.

Hoaxers like Jung Chang or Margolin have consistently sought to mislead readers by manipulating or even falsifying the figures. For clarity I sat down with a calculator and crunched out some numbers using Banister's estimates for the annual population and estimates of death rates, measured against the death rates assigned to the years 1949 and 1957. It's clear that if we use the 1949 death rate as a standard, then the only year which can be counted as a year of famine is 1960. The death rates assigned to 1958, 1959, and 1961 are not only well below the Banister's 1949 death rate, but they are also well below the death rate of 30.9 per thousand which is normally ascribed to Czarist Russia in 1913. The years 1958, 1959, and 1961 can only be considered as "years of famine" if measured against the death rate which Banister ascribes to 1957 of 18.12. Using 1949 as a standard of measurement, I computed from Banister's population estimates that about 4.35 million died in 1960 above the level of what would have been the case had mortality remained at a level of 38 per thousand. Using 1957 as the standard, I calculated that about 25.4 million died in the years 1958-61 above the level that would be expected with a death rate of 18.12 per thousand.

That last bit carries the samll kernel of truth which is played upon and twsited out of shape by con artists like Margolin. Not that he actually reports facts in any coherent manner. On page 495 of THE BLACK BOOK OF COMMUNISM Margolin asserts that death rates in China for 1957 were what is obviously meant to be read as "11 per thousand" (a misprint in Margolin's text writes this as "11 percent") and then goes on to give death rates of 15 per thousand to the years 1959 and 1961, while asserting a peak mortality of 29 per thousand for 1960. All of these numbers are in reality far too low. Anyone familiar with Czarist Russia's mortality statistics will realize that by these standards Czarist Russia was a land of permanent famine, since the death rate for the year 1913 in Czarist Russia was higher than what Margolin claims was the death rate at the peak of famine in China in 1960 (Margolin's claimed 29 per thousand for 1960 China versus the 30.9 per thousand which Czarist Russia in 1913 held). It's obvious that all of Margolin's numbers are way too low, and Banister's assignment of a death rate of 44.6 to the year 1960 is certainly more credible than anything which Margolin offers.

The deeper problem is, though, that it is very misleading to cite the 1960 death rate separate from the general demographic table. Comparing 1960 with 1957, without noting for readers that the drop in mortality rates for China between 1949-57 was a heretofore unprecedented drop in overall mortality rates for China. It does not mean anything to mention, as Margolin does on the same page of THE BLACK BOOK, a range of estimates for the famine of 1877-8 which lie between 9-13 million deaths and then try to compare this with estimates for the 1960 famine. Not that Margolin has any valid estimates for the latter. On the same page of THE BLACK BOOK he tosses out assertions that between 20-43 million died in the famine of 1960. Those numbers are grossly out of line with any kind of data, but especially with the lower numbers which Margolin himself gives as claimed death rates. If you use Banister's numbers to compute a death toll for 1958-61 which assumes the death rate of 18.12 in 1957 to be the standard, you come out with about 25.4 million deaths over the 1957 rate. The gap between Banister's number for 1960 and her choice... Read more

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Was this review helpful to you?

Comment

Comment on Birth Control in China 1949-2000: Population POlicy and Demographic Development (Chinese Worlds S.) by L. Willson "pediatrician"

L. Willson "pediatrician" — Tue, 15 May 2012 11:08:29 +0000

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

More than statistics, August 26, 2006

L. Willson "pediatrician" (Minnesota) -

This review is from: Birth Control in China 1949-2000: Population Policy and Demographic Development (Chinese Worlds) (Hardcover)

This is a scholarly volume, but also tells an important human and cultural story. It will be of great interest to any parent who has adopted from China and has a desire to better understand the predicament that causes birthparents to abandon children, especially girls. It will also be of value to readers interested in demographics, medical ethics, or public policy studies.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Was this review helpful to you?

Comment

Comment on Q&A: What caused China to get so much population in the very first time? by 爱德华

爱德华 — Sat, 12 May 2012 02:23:54 +0000

When japanese army conquer China, japanese people kill thousend of chinese people, then mao zedong is coming to stop japanese massacre, when mao stop that massacre, he reclaims Chinese independece in 1949, then he told every chinese people can have a lot babys, but how mao zedong knows chinese population will increase 15亿中国人

Comment on Q&A: What caused China to get so much population in the very first time? by Lou

Lou — Sat, 12 May 2012 01:23:58 +0000

Time, China goes way back in time!!

Comment on The Tiger Chinese New Year Shuffle by bentotheclarke

bentotheclarke — Fri, 11 May 2012 07:59:23 +0000

thought you might say that, what i meant was what happens in our solar system, like for me 1 year is 1 rotation of the earth around the sun. i would like to know the equivalant for chinese new year is. thanks muchly

Comment on The Tiger Chinese New Year Shuffle by TheCakeIsALieGxG

TheCakeIsALieGxG — Fri, 11 May 2012 07:42:23 +0000

“The Chinese calendar is based on a combination of lunar and solar movements. The lunar cycle is about 29.5 days. In order to “catch up” with the solar calendar the Chinese insert an extra month once every few years (seven years out of a 19-yearcycle). This is the same as adding an extra day on leap year. This is why, according to the solar calendar, the Chinese New Year falls on a different date each year.” In the Gregorian calendar, it occurs between January 21 and February 20.

Comment on The Tiger Chinese New Year Shuffle by Xirus5

Xirus5 — Fri, 11 May 2012 06:48:10 +0000

That made me lol ^^
the georgian calendar is not the only calendar in the world.. infact its one of the youngest.. its only about 500 years old.. the 0 point as you already know is based on BC aka before christ and AD – anno domini aka in the year of christ and as you know not everyone believe in jesus christ.. jews,indians,muslims etc etc all has their own calendar and their own new year.. but just like the universal language “English” so has the georgian calendar become

Comment on The Tiger Chinese New Year Shuffle by sametta

sametta — Fri, 11 May 2012 06:36:41 +0000

cool i from china it cool

Comment on The Tiger Chinese New Year Shuffle by sametta

sametta — Fri, 11 May 2012 05:42:29 +0000

cool i from china it cool see gung hay fat choy

Comment on The Tiger Chinese New Year Shuffle by llasse22kd

llasse22kd — Fri, 11 May 2012 05:13:19 +0000

LOOOOOOOOL i have birthday on the 3rd february THEY ARE PARTYING FOR ME