Thirty years ago today...

[Gandalf]

According to the Chinese government, nothing happened.

[Jub]

Human rights abuses... in China!?!

[The Romulan Republic]

May the victims of tyranny, that day and through the ages, rest in peace, and may their memory inspire people of all nations to forever rise up, until the whole world is free.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

People forget the context of why Tienanmen Square happened the way it did: Chinese history taught the PRC that you've got to ensure stability overall other things. Remember, the PRC heads rightly feared that Tienanmen Square was going to be simply a repeat of the Modern Warlords era, where the Communists marched and pretty much took all of China in the process...

[Broomstick]

The Chinese government won that round. Many in China are completely unaware anything happened. It's an example of how history can be utterly rewritten in a surprisingly short time.

[Gandalf]

The Chinese government won that round. Many in China are completely unaware anything happened. It's an example of how history can be utterly rewritten in a surprisingly short time.

Part of me has thought that Tiananmen stays in the public consciousness (outside of China) because the CCP keep denying it.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Chinese government won that round. Many in China are completely unaware anything happened. It's an example of how history can be utterly rewritten in a surprisingly short time.

Part of me has thought that Tiananmen stays in the public consciousness (outside of China) because the CCP keep denying it.

They won that round in China, lost it in the rest of the world. But that doesn't really matter much, because the rest of the world is economically dependent on them and they have nukes, so the rest of the world didn't and won't do jack shit of consequence about it.

[mr friendly guy]

People forget the context of why Tienanmen Square happened the way it did: Chinese history taught the PRC that you've got to ensure stability overall other things. Remember, the PRC heads rightly feared that Tienanmen Square was going to be simply a repeat of the Modern Warlords era, where the Communists marched and pretty much took all of China in the process...

The warlord era ended in 1928 dude. It ended due to the actions of the Guomindang. The Communists didn't take power until 1949, with the defeat of the Guomindang.

[Tribble]

So, anyone here with a non-western take and/or point of view? Was it exaggerated all out of proportion by westerners to make China look bad? Or maybe it worse than what was reported? Was it a massacre, or were they truly dangerous revolutionaries that had to be stopped at all costs?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

The warlord era ended in 1928 dude. It ended due to the actions of the Guomindang. The Communists didn't take power until 1949, with the defeat of the Guomindang.

No, the Warlord Era continued until the Communists took power in reality. Guomindang was something of a fantasy, pure and simple. That is sadly the truth of the matter.

[Ziggy Stardust]

People forget the context of why Tienanmen Square happened the way it did: Chinese history taught the PRC that you've got to ensure stability overall other things. Remember, the PRC heads rightly feared that Tienanmen Square was going to be simply a repeat of the Modern Warlords era, where the Communists marched and pretty much took all of China in the process...

IIRC, the heaviest factor in the heavy-handed response of the Communist party was driven by the fact that a large contingent of the party leadership actually SYMPATHIZED with the protesters. The protests were sparked by the death of the General Secretary Hu Yaobang, who was responsible for a series of reforms throughout the 1980s that led to increased freedom of the press, a more pro-market free market economic policy, and other pro-capitalist and pro-democracy measures. The Premiere of China during the protests was similarly reform-minded, and was a public advocate of a separation between the state and the party. For the first month or so of the protests, the party had a muddled response due to infighting between the pro-reform faction led by Premiere Zhao Ziyang and a hardliner faction led by Deng Xiaoping. It wasn't until over a month after the protests began that the hardliner faction essentially won the infighting and declared martial law to put down the protests, which coincided with a purging of the pro-reform party leadership (followed by a "rectification program" over the next couple of years to further "purify" the party ranks of reformers).

In short, it WAS a power struggle, but it wasn't due to any fears of warlords somehow taking over. It was due to fears that the country would liberalize and turn into a modern capitalist democracy.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

IIRC, the heaviest factor in the heavy-handed response of the Communist party was driven by the fact that a large contingent of the party leadership actually SYMPATHIZED with the protesters. The protests were sparked by the death of the General Secretary Hu Yaobang, who was responsible for a series of reforms throughout the 1980s that led to increased freedom of the press, a more pro-market free market economic policy, and other pro-capitalist and pro-democracy measures. The Premiere of China during the protests was similarly reform-minded, and was a public advocate of a separation between the state and the party. For the first month or so of the protests, the party had a muddled response due to infighting between the pro-reform faction led by Premiere Zhao Ziyang and a hardliner faction led by Deng Xiaoping. It wasn't until over a month after the protests began that the hardliner faction essentially won the infighting and declared martial law to put down the protests, which coincided with a purging of the pro-reform party leadership (followed by a "rectification program" over the next couple of years to further "purify" the party ranks of reformers).

In short, it WAS a power struggle, but it wasn't due to any fears of warlords somehow taking over. It was due to fears that the country would liberalize and turn into a modern capitalist democracy.

Not from where I sit. The thing with China is that it's historical context is... to put it blaintly, so cyclic that you can practically set a watch to it. It simply accelerated when the entire 'mandate of heaven' thing became a real thing. If the government looked weak, then that is it for them and they'll be seeing each other from street lamps. Look weak and everything literally falls apart at the seems.

Under that context, the levels of sheer authoritarianism is understandable to the leadership that lived through the Rise of Mao...

[LadyTevar]

While the college students were protesting, they were not a unified front. They had their own factions and fractions and were as divided as the Chinese Government over where the Protest was going. So, even if the students had managed to overthrow the government, you'd have had massive infighting as they tried to figure out what they were doing.
(paraphrased from a BBC Article I saw Monday)

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not from where I sit.

So, basically, you are ignoring all the available facts we actually have at hand about the incident to stubbornly repeat an argument revolving around vague and unsubstantiated allusions to history and stereotypes about China. Given your posting history I'm not really sure why I thought any better of you, in retrospect.

[Exonerate]

So, anyone here with a non-western take and/or point of view? Was it exaggerated all out of proportion by westerners to make China look bad? Or maybe it worse than what was reported? Was it a massacre, or were they truly dangerous revolutionaries that had to be stopped at all costs?

The CCP point of view is basically that if they had given in, they would've ended up like the USSR. I think it's a story that gets bigger with each retelling and frankly all the hyperbole is quite annoying. Some things that often get (sometimes deliberately) overlooked:

• The incidents are quite well known in China, even if a lot of the details are fuzzy. The idea that the CCP has succeeded in a 1984-style complete rewrite of history is fantastic.
• It wasn't just student protests, there were also discontent workers because of inflation from the free market reforms. There was support from a broad cross-section of society, including some within the CCP.
• Protests were nation wide, not just in Beijing.
• Ironically, the vast majority of the loss of life was not in Tiananmen Square, but as the PLA forced their way to it through barricades. By most accounts, the student protesters were allowed to leave the square peacefully.
• By the end of it, the protests were pretty much petering out already and if the government just waited longer, it probably would've dissolved.

The idea that it would've ended up in a violent revolution if they didn't send the troops in to disperse the protesters, with lethal force if necessary, is pretty farfetched. What the CCP was afraid was a loss of control.

Part of me has thought that Tiananmen stays in the public consciousness (outside of China) because the CCP keep denying it.

I think a great deal also has to do with the fact that China not only had the temerity to not embrace Freedom and Democracy like the USSR (never mind how it's actually turned out...), it has thrived since then. People don't like the idea that they didn't get their comeuppance.

[ray245]

May the victims of tyranny, that day and through the ages, rest in peace, and may their memory inspire people of all nations to forever rise up, until the whole world is free.

It's not as simple as rising up and liberating people, no matter how seductive that narrative is. I argue that the tendency of the western world to mythologise the rising up and overthrowing tyranny narrative is deeply problematic and is responsible for a lot of failed revolutions in the non-western world. The failure of the Arab Spring revolution goes to show it's not a matter of simply rising up and overthrowing tyranny. A country after a revolution needs to take into account of ensuring you can actually build a stable democratic government, and not allow the power vacuum to be replaced by the same set of leaders.

Reforming, or rebuilding a country is tedious boring work that's not really romantic at all. India is more democratic, but that doesn't necessarily make lives better for everyone. A overly simple narrative you're constructing will do more harm than good in the long run. Countries don't exist to make the west feel good about themselves like a movie.

[K. A. Pital]

Exonerate, „hyperbole“? Ending like the USSR would mean tens of millions of excess deaths. The so-called peaceful democratic transition had direct civil war casualties in the tens of thousands and millions excess deaths from poverty, hunger, lack of medical services. The CCP can milk the story of the disaster in the USSR for a century, the above considered.

[mr friendly guy]

Not sure if failing to stop the reforms would cause China to break up like the USSR given some of those factors didn't apply to China. Failure to do reforms the gradual way Deng wanted, leading to China becoming like Russia under the Yeltsin years....Well that is another matter.

The Deng reforms actually nearly got derailed because of the protests as Deng Xiaopings power weakened. It was only due to the assistance of Deng's PLA buddies that the next administration agreed to continue the economic reforms.

[LaCroix]

It's not as simple as rising up and liberating people, no matter how seductive that narrative is. I argue that the tendency of the western world to mythologise the rising up and overthrowing tyranny narrative is deeply problematic and is responsible for a lot of failed revolutions in the non-western world. The failure of the Arab Spring revolution goes to show it's not a matter of simply rising up and overthrowing tyranny. A country after a revolution needs to take into account of ensuring you can actually build a stable democratic government, and not allow the power vacuum to be replaced by the same set of leaders.

Reforming, or rebuilding a country is tedious boring work that's not really romantic at all. India is more democratic, but that doesn't necessarily make lives better for everyone. A overly simple narrative you're constructing will do more harm than good in the long run. Countries don't exist to make the west feel good about themselves like a movie.

Not only the non-western world - just look at the most famous western revolutions:
French - the factions turned against each other and everything fell back into a dictatorship within a couple of years.
American - They freed themselves from the British, but were set up in a way that led to the civil war, and that has never really ended, politically, until today, when it flares up, again. Apart from the country being at war for pretty much 95% of the time it existed, and destabilizing entire regions.
Russian - Stalin, then the communist repession of their neighbors, destabilizing entire regions, and then again, civil wars when it fell apart in another revolution. Now a kleptocratic oligarchy with a thin veneer or potemkin-democracy.

Pretty much no differnce from what we saw in the Arab spring, or the various other prominent revolutions in South america, eastern Asia, etc.

I'd argue that we have yet to see a successful (uprising-type) revolution...

The only ones that worked where the non-violent, slow political reforms.

[K. A. Pital]

You mean our revolution wasn’t successful? What do you mean by that?

We were 80% illiterate peasants with a functional, privileged aristocracy - and went from that state to fully literate superpower that defeated the fucking Nazis, launched the first satellite and first human into space, fully free tertiary (!) education and full employment and full housing. Sure, it wasn’t easy, but who promised easy anyway?

The French formed a strong Republican tradition and spread the idea of universal human rights.

No difference from the „Arab Spring“?

What a load of bullshit. Or are you saying we‘d be better off under fucking aristos, saying DEAR LORD to people of a higher estate until that day?

The revolutions were a success. It is just the fact they weren’t perfect, or did not bring about a utopia - well no shit, we live in the real world.

But the revolution let a peasant‘s son become a fucking cosmonaut and sons of workers to become fucking physics professors. Fuck the fucking aristos and the power.

[ray245]

It's not as simple as rising up and liberating people, no matter how seductive that narrative is. I argue that the tendency of the western world to mythologise the rising up and overthrowing tyranny narrative is deeply problematic and is responsible for a lot of failed revolutions in the non-western world. The failure of the Arab Spring revolution goes to show it's not a matter of simply rising up and overthrowing tyranny. A country after a revolution needs to take into account of ensuring you can actually build a stable democratic government, and not allow the power vacuum to be replaced by the same set of leaders.

Reforming, or rebuilding a country is tedious boring work that's not really romantic at all. India is more democratic, but that doesn't necessarily make lives better for everyone. A overly simple narrative you're constructing will do more harm than good in the long run. Countries don't exist to make the west feel good about themselves like a movie.

Not only the non-western world - just look at the most famous western revolutions:
French - the factions turned against each other and everything fell back into a dictatorship within a couple of years.
American - They freed themselves from the British, but were set up in a way that led to the civil war, and that has never really ended, politically, until today, when it flares up, again. Apart from the country being at war for pretty much 95% of the time it existed, and destabilizing entire regions.
Russian - Stalin, then the communist repession of their neighbors, destabilizing entire regions, and then again, civil wars when it fell apart in another revolution. Now a kleptocratic oligarchy with a thin veneer or potemkin-democracy.

Pretty much no differnce from what we saw in the Arab spring, or the various other prominent revolutions in South america, eastern Asia, etc.

I'd argue that we have yet to see a successful (uprising-type) revolution...

The only ones that worked where the non-violent, slow political reforms.

Well, if people are hoping for a quick transition to democratic government overnight, I think they've drank way too much kool-aid. Whenever an autocratic regime collapse, it simply creates a power vacuum. And sometimes pro-democratic oppositions are not in an ideal position to compete against other wannabe factions.

[The Romulan Republic]

May the victims of tyranny, that day and through the ages, rest in peace, and may their memory inspire people of all nations to forever rise up, until the whole world is free.

It's not as simple as rising up and liberating people, no matter how seductive that narrative is. I argue that the tendency of the western world to mythologise the rising up and overthrowing tyranny narrative is deeply problematic and is responsible for a lot of failed revolutions in the non-western world. The failure of the Arab Spring revolution goes to show it's not a matter of simply rising up and overthrowing tyranny. A country after a revolution needs to take into account of ensuring you can actually build a stable democratic government, and not allow the power vacuum to be replaced by the same set of leaders.

I don't deny it. In fact I've made the same argument repeatedly against advocates of Left-wing revolt here in America.

Reforming, or rebuilding a country is tedious boring work that's not really romantic at all. India is more democratic, but that doesn't necessarily make lives better for everyone. A overly simple narrative you're constructing will do more harm than good in the long run. Countries don't exist to make the west feel good about themselves like a movie.

Nice job putting words in my mouth, you condescending shit. Sorry I didn't write an essay detailing every step in the process of a successful revolution. But I'm aware that there is a concerted effort on this board by some to warp my words (or outright lie) to paint me as a stereotypical western Imperialist.

[mr friendly guy]

Part of me has thought that Tiananmen stays in the public consciousness (outside of China) because the CCP keep denying it.

I think a great deal also has to do with the fact that China not only had the temerity to not embrace Freedom and Democracy like the USSR (never mind how it's actually turned out...), it has thrived since then. People don't like the idea that they didn't get their comeuppance.

I am starting to wonder if that's a reason as well. When China does a home arrest for someone for tax evasion, they're "disappearing" that person. When China doesn't let people who refuse to swear loyalty take official positions, its suppressing democracy. The Chinese don't invest, they "colonise." When China puts up the sun on television screen on a tourism video, its not advertising tourism, no its because the pollution is sooo bad they had to use artificial light. No I wish I was making that up, but no that's a claim by Western media. The double standards are quite telling and you have to wonder why media outlets like bringing this up.

By comparison, in democratic India, in the same decade as the Tiananmen protests there was the anti Sikh riots where the lower estimates of death toll is comparable to the higher end death toll estimates for the Chinese protests. I had never heard of this event until Chinese posters posted it as a way of countering Indian trolling. And the lack of reporting on this by western media is telling. China bashing is just more likely to generate clicks and views than India bashing. To be fair, China is most probably not the worse example of applying double standards to another country, but its sure up there.

[The Romulan Republic]

India's government deserves plenty of criticism (its current PM, Modi, is tied to anti-Muslim violence that killed hundreds, as I believe I've noted on this board before). But at the same time, India's faults should not be used to distract from or excuse China's, or to refute criticisms of it by ad hominem. The fact is, the Chinese government murdered pro-democracy protesters. That is worth remembering, regardless of the reasons why it receives so much attention or whether there are other crimes that also deserve more attention.

I honestly wish this board's moderators would specifically note Whataboutism as an example of dishonest debating and a violation of board rules. I think that's necessary at this point.

[mr friendly guy]

India's government deserves plenty of criticism (its current PM, Modi, is tied to anti-Muslim violence that killed hundreds, as I believe I've noted on this board before). But at the same time, India's faults should not be used to distract from or excuse China's, or to refute criticisms of it by ad hominem. The fact is, the Chinese government murdered pro-democracy protesters. That is worth remembering, regardless of the reasons why it receives so much attention or whether there are other crimes that also deserve more attention.

I honestly wish this board's moderators would specifically note Whataboutism as an example of dishonest debating and a violation of board rules. I think that's necessary at this point.

Sigh. You love your whataboutism accusations dude. The point isn't that China doing it is ok or India doing it is not. My point wasn't even directed against India per se, but an observation that MEDIA focus more on certain events than others, even if the one not reported appears to have more casualties. My point was directed at the media. People have raised the issue of why the Chinese protests continue to be remembered. I used an example to illustrate my point that some countries like China, tend to draw the media's focus more than others. My argument isn't that China automatically are angels, but that there is a disproportionate scrutiny on China. When some of that scrutiny is unfair, it detracts from scrutiny which is fair, just like the boy who cried wolf too many times.