But it's not just deliberately ignoring it. It's forcing everyone else to ignore it as well. They aren't allowing anyone to commemorate it.
No, it's the usual lack of care when replying to your posts. Believe it or not, it's really hard to take care when replying to a post with no substance. Believe it or not, it's even harder to maintain seriousness when replying to the loser whose post does nothing but get a chuckle out of you. Confusion is not exactly the way to describe it. It was a power struggle with certain elements fearing they would lose control. The 38th Army out of Beijing (Baoding actually) was order first to remove the students. It turned out command chain of that particular Army was reformist and particular sympathetic to the cause, so it refused. That's why the 27th and 28th were called in. It wasn't an attempt to keep an eye on the students as much as on the 38th. When the 27th Army reached Tiananmen Square, it quickly established defensive perimetre to defend itself from being attacked. Hence the tanks. They don't need those against students. See here is the thing, those people that care always will care. Those that don't, won't, even if commemoration events are held.
That may be true from your experience. But that isn't true from my experience. There have been events or celebrations that made my aware of new things I didn't know about. There have been events and celebrations that focused my attention on things that I wouldn't have noticed before, and gave me information I didn't have before. I ended up caring much more after finding out than I did before. If that's true some would always care and some always would not care, why would govt. go to such trouble to forbid any kind of commemoration? Let's say there are some who always would care, and those who would never care, but I think it's fair to say that there are others who might care if attention was brought to it. At least the govt. seems to think so as well.
I know I need to read more about China's history, but even with my limited knowledge, I can say your statement is blatantly wrong, which cast doubts on your creditability as regard to what you are arguing for. The Communist's movement in China started in rural areas, as Mao put it "Villages circle cities". Throughout China's history, every dynasty/political change was brought about by peasants' rebellion. I am not sure where you are going with " rural communities in China always were less politically active"? that their rights of today are less important, that 6.4 wasn't about farmers' rights and thus their rights can be ignored？Anyways, it seems you tried to mislead me, to say the least. No. I am not arguing China would be problem free had people's voice been heard and counted. What I am arguing is that China needs a more democratic system to better guarantee everybody's interest in the economic progress. Again, I am not sure what you meant by your rhetoric, that there is no perfect system to cure every problem, so China doesn't need change politically? I am probably not the most political savvy poster on this board, but again I am not sure why you point out political attention an area receives in the United States? That democracy doesn't guarantee political attention? While you need to support your argument with more substantive evidences, I will however admit that democracy is not a panacea to cure every problem China has or to guarantee every Chinese's basic rights fair and square. But don't you at least agree with me that the democratic system we all enjoy here is a more fair mechanism than that in China? The basic responsibility of any government is to improve people's lives over the time, unless your standard is Cuba and North Korea. While CCCP's genuine effort to improve the country over last 30 years or so is laudable, this is what a conscionable government is supposed to do. I admit what China did economically was not a simple feast, and I am really really proud of it. I however grew anxious and agitated by the country's lack of change in the political arena. I am not trying to demonize CCCP or the people carrying out the political apparatus under the current system. The problem is not the people involved, but rather the system itself: Who decide who's rights to be sacrificed in the name of economic progress and stability? China's human right's problem is not unique if you look at the beginning phase of other industrial countries. While Beijing is trying hard to eliminate those problems, it is hard to guarantee everybody's rights when the people especially those that are politically weak are not in the political process. Chinese doesn't need people to teach what democracy is, and how it is better. I say what I say because I care about China unlike some other people who get nervous if China really gets stronger because they still live in the cold war era. What China needs right now is people that know how to bright about and carry out democracy in China. I am still waiting on the first step towards a democratic China.
My assessment is right on target. While the initial student demonstration had these two specific goals, by the time the crackdown was about to take place, the scale as well as the aim of demonstration had been largely veered off to uncharted territory. A couple of things to note here. First, corruptions are actually more rampant and severe today than they were 20 years ago, yet you don't see one single demonstration from college students calling for an end to corruption. Back then, (young) people had much harder time getting their pieces of pie as the party elite did. The anti-corruption rallies in '89 belied dissatisfaction of lack of economic and personal freedom more than anything else. Funny you would bring up the name of Zhao Ziyang. On Shanghai streets in those days you could often hear murmurs that Zhao's oldest son ( 赵大公子 ) was an powerful figure behind many mega "business transactions" that were completely beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. If the student demonstrators really wanted a close look at corruption, they might as well start off by examining the man who was supporting their "cause." Second, Hu Yaobang was CCP's General Secretary at the time of his untimely death. He might have lost a bit favor of the party elderly but he was neither persecuted nor expelled. A state funeral was planned for him and he was treated like a rock star by his followers without expressed objection from the CCP. I mean what more can you ask for with regard to a relatively young politician in PRC back then? I didn't comprehend the hype back then and still I don't now. Those student activists, especially the dozen or so ring leaders, besides being self-aggrandizing egomaniacs, were manipulated at the same time. Projecting them as totally innocent victims is misleading at best. For weeks, The government function was shut down and the entire country were held hostage. It would have not been an exaggeration to say Cultural Revolution II was about to erupt if the government failed to restore order swiftly and decisively. However, there is no doubt in my mind if riot-control apparatus such as Taser, high-pressure water cannon, rubber bullets, and anti-riot gear were available, far few casualties would have been expected. Military is an integral part of the state apparatus. If the soldier driving the tank received an order to take the idiot off, he would have to follow order or otherwise face insubordination charge. Well he sure had his fifteen minutes of fame. I bet in every country of this world if you are deliberately impeding the progress of military vehicles, you will be dealt with harshly sooner or later.
I highly recommend you read Prisoner of the State. It answers most of your questions. My rough understanding after reading that book is that Hu Yaobang, Zhao Ziyang company represented the reformists who had ambition to change China politically towards a more democratic China (so was claimed by Zhao Ziyang in the book). That reform was of course on the collision course with the agenda in CCCP elders' mind, represented by Li Peng company. Deng is a curious character. He seemed to be ambivalent. He first supported Hu, Zhao but later swung towards the hawks as he felt the reform went too far. Hu according to Zhao was even more progressive in terms of reforming China, and thus lost his job after 87. There was a curtail of reforming after 87, which I vaguely remember now. During late 80s, China was very acceptive of western ideals, for example I remember nudity in 8 o'clock TV program was considered to be OK. That of course didn't run well with the party elders, who consider themselves representing those who sacrificed for Mao's ideals. The 89 events came down to the tension between the reformists and the conservatives. Looking back, I think the crackdown was inevitable, considering the conservative had much more powers than the reformists. Had Deng been a determinative supporter of the reformists, it might have been a different story, or not. But we all know Deng sided with the conservatives.
Just a quick comment on this particular segment of your response to MFW. Your limited knowledge on China's history failed you. Mao's "Villages circle cities" strategy worked not because peasants were more advanced in their revolutionary thinking, but because there was less KMT military control in countryside as opposed to in metropolitan areas, thus making it easier for CCP to spread the message and to start the armed grassroots campaign. In fact, Mao, a peasant himself, always reminded the Chinese that industrial workers are the 1st tier leaders in revolutionary success.
Thanks for pointing that out. But isn't really the union of the Peasants and Workers that CCCP relied on. Do you agree that the assessment that "rural communities in China always were less politically active"? And that's what I was trying to refute.
CCP had to rely on peasants to be successful. Besides the reason it was much easier to maneuver in the countryside, the (human) resources were also more abundant. If the context of his statement refers to the period since late 19th or early 20th century of China, it is absolutely correct. Prior to that, China's economy was almost exclusively agricultural, so cities would play very limited role anyway.
My sentiments too. While the movement was less organized with agenda and demands all over the places, I think most students were genuine. There was no need to open fire towards people, as you said it other non-fatal measures could have achieved the same to impose martial law in Beijing. At the end, Deng made the decision to teach kids a lesson.
Are you down playing land reforms cried out for by the peasants during late 19th and 20th century? How about the boxers and Tai Ping Tianguo. Mao got his support largely from the rural because he promised to give peasants the land. I am not sure how you define political activity. As you put it, Mao himself is a peasant.
Taiping Rebellion was in mid-19th century. Both started off with too much mythical religious undertones. Private land ownership was hardly on either agenda. I am pretty sure Mao did NOT promise to give the peasants their own land as communism is not about private ownership, but more of common ownership. Given the vast disparity of wealth in rural areas of China, the message was like heavenly sent.
I am pretty sure both rebellions were not about freedom of practicing religion. Anyways, this is off the topic. I just took rural people's rights as an example of inequality. The same applies to other groups too, the blue collar city workers, various religious groups (including Tibetans), the gay people, on and on. China is not only about middle class city people. Whether those groups were politically active had nothing to do with democratization that gives them voices that count. Whatever the CCP is claiming, i.e. let some be rich first, I am not seeing signs of giving equal rights to those groups.
Well, they sure wanted the freedom to practice their version of religion, didn't they? The "Let some be rich first" policy has long been abandoned by CCP. It wasn't until 1992 when Deng Xiaoping began his "Southern Tour" and witnessed in Shenzhen the success of vibrant market-oriented economy -- the experimental model he proposed almost a decade ago -- that China's economic reform went in full gear. China's economy boom didn't start right after the June 4 incident. It wasn't remotely close, thus (arguably) making the "pro-democracy movement" in '89 a forgettable, if not irrelevant, event.
I differ with you on the point that June.4 incident is forgettable. Economic well-being is not the only goal of China. Political change is necessary facilitate the economical development. You and I both know there are limits as certain things one can or cannot say or read in China. Government fears the people. The paternalistic way of governing has to go. June.4 marks as an important event as people's demand of political change under CCP. It shouldn't be brushed off as irrelevant or insignificant.
wnes already more or less answered your post, but let me clarify a couple of things. I'm not trying to mislead you at all. The common factor of the events you mentioned is not politics, but economics. Yes the two often are linked, but only because the former is usually the precursor (or the process) to beget the latter. All of those dynastic changes are in one way or another preceeded by some form of economic depression which led to significant drops in the standard of living for the peasants, hence the rebellions. Mao's own rebellion was one of such. Due to his inability to conjure support from urban areas, he turned to the rural communities. Of course, it does help that he promised legitimacy to the farmers to work the fields they unceremoniously stripped from the previous owners. So as you can see, political activism for the pragmatic Chinese farmers always was one based on economic necessity instead of true activism, which you'd find more in the cities, especially in modern times. As a matter of fact, June 4 was much less about farmers rights as their economic condition. While some got ahead, many lost their so called iron rice bowls. China in 1989 was a 10 way tug-of-war in which one of the sides was pulling left, to where it was in the 70's. And hence I think you'd find my credibility quite intact. I think you missed the point. There isn't a single political system that would guarantee everybody's interest in economic progress. And since that is true, or you suggesting change for the sake of change? Well once again I ask, are you proposing change for the sake of change? I think the reason I picked the US should be abandantly clear. It is a democracy (which you support) and also one that you are familiar with. You know I was once driving to Chicago so I took a passage through New York State. Went through Albany, Syracuse, Ithaca, Rochester, Buffalo, etc, and let me tell you, the economic picture is outright depressing the further you get from the city. Doesn't put that in perspective? Here's another one for ya. Did you know that New York is one of the only two states (NC being the other one, IIRC) that forces its communities to pay its own Medicare/Medicaid expenses? Oh yeah, I read the GAO reports and net asset balances (or should I say net liabilities). Makes the State look real good accounting-wise, well, at least before the crisis. Makes the rest of the state, especially those poorer rust belt communities eat 3.6% property taxes with bankrupt local/county level governments. Makes one think. And that my friend, is opinion. I somehow get the feeling that you feel I am against democracy. I am not. I am against change for change's sake, which should be abundantly clear by now.
I am not proposing to change for the sake of change. I don't know how else to make myself more clear. There are degrees of citizenships in China, and people's basic rights are ignored. I am arguing the current paternalistic political system in China is at odds with guaranteeing people's rights. Again, who makes the decision whose rights can be sacrificed in the name of economic progress and achieving stability. Are people involved in local election, law making process, etc that affect their lives. Change for the sake of change? How can you say that with a straight face, or not? Again I think your view point is that of typical middle class Chinese who benefited most in the process. Thanks for the lecture and a tour in the memory lane, but I fail to see any relevance to the topic at hand. Ok, NY sucks, poor Americans are taken advantage of. But at least should those poor people choose to take on the government to show their Constitutional rights are violated, they can do that. Can you say that about China? Give me some substantive evidence that China's political system is so great that no change towards democracy is needed. I suggest you take a tour in the southeast coastal China, the factories, see for yourselves how the migrant workers live and treated there. Take tour to Tibet and see for yourself how Tibetans are treated. Take a tour to city corners where gay people gather, see for yourself how they are treated. You fed people first, and it's about the time to recognize their demands of basic human rights.
For the foreseeable future it will remain THE goal of China. Everything else comes secondary. It depends. Change for the sake of change is not (necessary). There are also things you can't do in more "freer" countries while such restrictions are non-existent in China. The abstraction of PRC government in particular isolation is not needed. Government is made of people, whether you like it or not. Career politicians who seemingly hold on to their positions (translation: power) forever exist in every country, only varying in extent. Complaining about paternalistic way of governing? LOL ... have you not been reading, for instance, D&D over the years? Obama detractors cry foul over the federal government's control over their financial lives while Bush detractors were no strangers to protesting government' intervening their social lives. Try to put things in perspective and don't be so naive. The June 4th mob were doing it the wrong way. History shows whenever there are radical political changes in China, casualties ensue. Before you set to embrace innocent youth's enthusiasm for change, at least you can tell them to be a student of the history first. Chinese, by and large, are rather conservative in nature.
[/QUOTE] My recollection is that by June 3rd the demonstration had started to lose steam and many students had left Tiananmen and gone home. While the protestors were occupying Tiananmen where they really hampering the ability of the government to function that much? It seems to me this would be equivalent of a 100,000 sticking around the DC Mall for weeks. While it would be a big headache the US government could still function.
My argument isn't that the Chinese are remotely close to the U.S. in terms of rights, but saying that we as a nation should not be the one pushing for the reform, at least not as hard as we are from the governing body. One nation should not tell another nation how to run its country unless the former nation's records are pristine (and not just relatively) and does not show bias with who they critique (lack of outrage at the Irish-English situations, favoritism towards Israel, etc.). It's not that China is correct or that the criticism from the U.S. is necessarily wrong, but the fact that there are skeletons in our closet (still) makes it unlikely for China to be receptive to the critiques. The modern China is still like a teen trying to figure out the place in life, somethings need to be figured out for themselves.
