And that makes the response by the Chinese government ok? That's the same logic that some used to defend the Kent State crisis.
The loss of lives was absolutely unfortunate and regrettable, but I am not sure any other sitting government would have done much better without further delaying the restoration of order.
This is a textbook wnes response. Textbook. It'd be almost funny if it was not so predictable and serious.
That's highly debatable. Consider what happened in Tiananmen compared to the 1963 March on Washington. That march potentially could've been very violent but it didn't. The march was allowed and while the government didn't make changes right away the government basically agreed with the marchers and things it ended up being peaceful and a great moment in American History. The PRC leadership could've agreed in principle with the protesters at Tiananmen and defused most of it without making immediate changes or leading to chaos. Li Peng and the hardliners overreacted to the situation. By 6/4/89 the demonstration was losing steam and they could've just waited them out.
Off the top of my head I don't know how long they stayed in Washington but I know that by 6/3-4/89 many students had already started leaving Tiananmen.
I think it's safe to say that had the civil rights marchers stayed in Washington for the amount of time the students did, the response would have been much different. again, the tiannemen response was extremely needlessly ruthless. some tear gas with a lot more manpower probably would have done it.
Maybe, maybe not but there was no reason for the marchers to stay anyway since the JFK administration stated they agreed with the marchers aims, keep in mind though they didn't get any legislation enacted to do so but agreed in principle. How bad would it have been for the PRC leadership to agree in principle that China needed to democratize and reduce corruption? The PRC since then has cracked down hard on corruption already. It might not have even needed that. I haven't been able to find copies of the news reports but I remember very clearly that by the start of June many students had started leaving and the demonstration was starting to fizzle. I even recall news analysist speculating that the PLA moved in then because the demonstration was losing steam and they figured resistance would be less than the attempt on 5/20/89 to take the square.
I wouldn't agree. We had one Kent State, where a handful of students died, not the hundreds at Tiananmen. We've had enormous demostrations at our own capitol that were essentially non-violent, as well as in the capitol of Texas, during Vietnam. http://www.utexas.edu/tours/nowthen/70/15_Protest_march_1970.GIF 20,000 protesting Vietnam and Kent State, here in Austin. I don't remember getting beat up, or being run over by a tank. You have to click on the link to see the photograph. D&D. Replicant Peaceful Protests.
Dunno much about this but I did read a book (sorry forget the name and author) dedicated to the subject many years- written by a Westerner guy who I think was unbiased. Basically from what I remember - 1. the protest started because of rising inflation - which is undoubtedly expected in some sectors when an economy loosens up 2. the alliance of laborers (who started the protest) and students were never quite united in their desires. I get the feeling the laborers cared less about "democracy" than they did of the current economic "recession" 3. death toll has been exaggerated. This point sounds sort of revisionist and may be to the point where the death toll becomes understated (like how Ben Wallace goes from "underrated" to "overrated" max contract guy). 4. Zhao Ziyang was very sympathetic to the students. At some point there was a debate where he told Li Peng "I have the people behind me". LiPeng responded with "Then you have nothing". 5. the guy in front of the tank did not die 6. Many military commanders hated following the orders of the CCP. While the chance of mutiny probably never really existed, many said they would never fire upon their own people ever again. 7. Li Peng felt that he was giving A LOT to the students by ackowledging them and granting a live TV dialogue with Wuer Kaixi (i think it was him). When the student leader started questioning Li Peng's widely known nepotism towards his kids - that was kind of the extra push over the cliff. Li Peng regarded that as a disrespectful slap in the face. 8. the protestors aims were sort of conflicted. They wanted controlled inflation and quicker pace of reforms. Yes one is economic and the other is political but there is a sort of dichotomy there. On one hand they wanted the central govt to have more power - and also less power. 9. Central govt fears chaos above all else. I think the history lessons from the Tai Ping rebellion are what scares them. And I'm sure lots of them are power hungry. 10. not sure exactly what would have appeased the students. widescale democratization was NOT going to happen. All in all - i think the whole thing was very poorly handled by the CCP. Yes the students were unrealistic but getting some teargas is one thing , getting shot and killed is murder. I forget a lot of that time, but I think Li Peng or Deng could have just come out with some statement that: 1. ackowledged the students aspirations and praise their patriotism 2. said that they are working on reform (they were at least economically) but that it is a long arduous process 3. some rhetoric about how the student protestors would be China's future leaders, etc and that the future is in good hands, etc.
^ Great summation Langal and I remember too that the protest regarding inflation was a factor. What kicked it off though was Hu's funeral which drew people to Tiananmen.
Nice post. I think this point especially does not get enough consideration in the West (who simply agree more with the students). A lot of Chinese citizens saw the students as extremist. It'd been ironically a little undemocratic to agree too much with their position. In college, I knew a graduate student who had been at Tiananmen Square when she was a student. She had a bunch of photos she had smuggled out. That was cool.
Hu was highly respected, coz he doesn't have any family members involved in any corruption scandals, unlike Deng, Zhao, Li, or any other heads. Hu was also in charge of restoring order and cleaning up the names of tons of falsely charged officials and civilians during the Culture Revolution. Hu was the ONLY Chinese high rank government official personally visited XiZhang and Xingjiang. Hu was supportive or at least sympathetic towards more freedom of speech. All in all, it made him respectable among general public and average CCP members, which is not favored among the party leaders. Sacrificing Hu to please conservatives was the move made by Deng, and supported by Zhao. Of course, Zhao didn't expect to get the same medicine, just like Liu did during Culture Revolution. Here is my take, if the student demonstration which was supported and participated by wide range of average citizens, had continued own pace of demanding a fair society, challenging corruption and inflation etc, it would have gained a lot for China, and average Chinese people. However, once it became a tool of certain politicians, it was dealt totally differently. When the state controlled media started to send out confusing messages, the political power struggle emerged to the open. Student demonstration was no longer student movement to those one in control of the power at that time, the crack down was done by the hard lines, which was ruthless and needless. But I think those so-called progressives shared some blame as well, or better to say, they have blood in their hands as well. Because they wanted to use that demonstration to gain more power, NOT to gain more democracy for China. Zhao of course would be the beneficiary, if he had succeeded, but that Mr. Bao was the one actively involved and pushed for those moves, for he's like the Rove kind of guy for Zhao.
good stuff langal. like most controversial incidences in history, some people romanticize it far too much while others demonize it just as much.
People living in China now and their whole lives who were not there, are the least informed in my experience.
Revolutions are never clean cut on to what idealogical side people stand on. I think the established government would've made the same response even if they assumed it was a purely democratic movement, but it's more than unlikely they knew for sure at the time. We have ample time to ascertain events in hindsight, but decision making during chaos is a different matter. I don't think American examples of demonstrations are proper parallels in comparison to the Tianamen Massacre. The US has had 200+ years of bloodless transfers of power. The culture among the people and the government are totally different. Plus, the American system promotes having spare leadership in reserve. I wonder if the experience and insights of revolutionaries would be capable of running the Chinese government under their ideological vision.
