I actually prefer that people try to dodge the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, simply because while the Western media distorts what actually happened, people died.
Since the CPC censors news of 6/4, the most favorable story by overseas Chinese is that there was a simultaneous proletarian uprising, that the killings did not occur on the square itself, that it was a combined movement by Maoists and Liberals, that it was not unprovoked, because the rioters attacked the troops first, taking their weapons, and tanks were only seen as necessary because of the vehemence and violence of the insurgency.
But we’re still downplaying the killing of civilians, even armed and violent ones, by the People’s Liberation Army. That, for us, is not a good look, so that’s something I’d rather dodge.
Nobody is downplaying anything. Saying people died but it wasn’t near the ‘100k people died and were crushed and hosed down the drains’ level of horrors isn’t downplaying.
The thing with the whole event is that it is near impossible to have a honest discussion about it due to the enormous stream of bullshit that is published and repeated about the event.
We’re describing the reality of the situation with respect for everyone involved.
Liberals will tell you it was a liberal, peacefull protest that was violently repressed and 10k people died. All complete lies, which do diservice to the actual tragedy that happened that day.
We will tell you a balanced account of it with respect to both sides and informed by the history of it.
One respects the dead, the other propogandizes them. We respect them.
But am I pointing out a real and difficult problem?
To cut a long story short, the People’s Liberation Army was called in to break an insurrection surrounding protests in Tiananmen Square. Old PLA elites are on record as having opposed intervention, and there was considerable dissent within the Party over the heavy action employed to counter a protest that had gotten out of hand. And people died.
This is the essential problem with Western media ops; i.e, if they say that there’s corruption in China, you can’t deny it because Xi Jinping is running an anti-corruption campaign and people get taken away by MPS and MSS under the auspices of the Organization Bureau.
However, it gives them the opportunity to spin it, to exaggerate it, to deploy it for their own propaganda purposes.
In the corruption case, we have the case wherein we can point to improved (previously) Corruption Perceptions Indices by the Western-aligned Transparency International NGO.
But in the Tiananmen Square incident, it seems like plain denialism to deliver the necessary nuance.
I mean, you can downvote me for this, but it is a reasonable topic of discussion as to how to handle this talking point, and generally how to deal with “it’s true, but exaggerated and spun” propaganda as the West seems to currently prefer.
Put it simply, how would you, as a party official in China explain to the famalies of the unarmed police officers who where lynched, flayed and burned alive by protestors that you did not intervene?
Some level of intervention was needed unfortunatly, its a tragedy that it escelated so far. We just call it what it is, a tragedy.
But in the Tiananmen Square incident, it seems like plain denialism to deliver the necessary nuance.
Because you’re arguing against the liberal orthodoxy, facts that go against the religion would be filtered into ‘denialism’, any scepticsm of the dogma needs to be attacked violently.
You’re sort of making my point for me, though. It’s easy to get dragged down the road of defending the killings of civilians, whereas it just makes us look bad.
I’d hold it happened, and given wiser handling by Zhongnanhai, the deaths could have at least been reduced or even avoided altogether, as in Shanghai.
As is, Zhongnanhai thought they were on the verge of being toppled, called in the PLA to forcefully disperse both peaceful and non-peaceful demonstrators, and here we are.
The focus should be more on how the West weaponizes this in a neoconservative fashion to justify military threat against China, including how the incident is spun and exaggerated.
The full Tank Man video, published by CBS, should be the rabbit hole needed to pull misled Westerners in.
You’re sort of making my point for me, though. It’s easy to get dragged down the road of defending the killings of civilians, whereas it just makes us look bad.
Im not doing that, people stop becoming ‘civallians’ when they pick up rifles and start lynching unarmed police officers in a communist state.
I’d hold it happened, and given wiser handling by Zhongnanhai, the deaths could have at least been reduced or even avoided altogether, as in Shanghai.
This is blaming the response rather than the instigators that killed so many people the military had to respond.
This all comes with some level, criticizing the people who instigated the violence, which wasnt China, it was the rioters calling for ‘rivers of blood’ months before the protests.
Gaza was the Israeli response to Hamas militants (democratically supported by the people of Gaza) breaching Israeli defenses, attacking military bases, then seizing Israeli civilians as hostages.
Does Palestinian or Hamas violence justify the collateral killing of over 30,000 Palestinians and the likely famine-induced death of over 180,000 people? After all, the Gaza government’s attack suggests they’re no longer civilians. I think the answer is no.
Once again, the maximalist line is a trap. Dodge if you’re ill-informed, if you’re not, focus on how the Western media plays this up and distorts it to justify an anti-China narrative.
I’m not on the side of the protesters, in fact, I’m happy they were forcefully dispersed because that meant a hard end to liberal subversion in China, at least in the short-term. But we have to be careful about how we counter Western disinformation.
Gaza was the Israeli response to Hamas militants (democratically supported by the people of Gaza) breaching Israeli defenses, attacking military bases, then seizing Israeli civilians as hostages.
Does Palestinian or Hamas violence justify the collateral killing of over 30,000 Palestinians and the likely famine-induced death of over 180,000 people? After all, the Gaza government’s attack suggests they’re no longer civilians. I think the answer is no.
I mean these things arent comparable, I dont think anyone would argue against the IOF considering the hamas fighters to be valid combat targets when they started killing people. Like we can disagree with the ideology of the IOF while still recongising they had some cassius bell to open fire on armed combatents.
No it doesnt, but it isnt relevant to what we’re discussing. If hamas won the war, then a splinter group of hamas fighters started killing Palestine police officers who are unarmed id have more of an issue with it.
As Communists, do we really have to obsess over blood-for-blood violence? Applying this to the Brits justifies the complete genocide of the British people, given the starvation that occurred in India during colonialism.
I’m currently in China. Defending the party goes as far as saying “if the Party had a secure way to avoid civilian deaths without compromising the Revolution, it would have done so, but it had no choice. The loss of life is truly regrettable, on both sides.” We don’t need to say the protesters deserved it (although Chai Ling probably did, but she got out without a scratch.)
I do admire your enthusiasm for protecting China against defamation, but there is a difference between useful support and going too far.
I am willing to admit that I am wrong, however. There are mentions of a 64 Tiananmen incident on Baidu, but nothing that specifically focuses on the event. I would like you to point me to search strings on Baidu that clearly focuses on and presents an official line on the Tiananmen demonstrations that ended on June 4th, 1989.
Screenshot it if you can find results on Baidu. I see some ancillary results discussing how production etc was disrupted by 6-4, but nothing discussing the incident itself, although I still need to go through the State Council logs.
Basically, in parts of the left-wing community, there’s a tendency to overidolize China, when China itself admits that Mao was 30% wrong, and considers itself a developing country that is still searching for solutions.
The problem is, if you become completely divorced from reality, you impede your capability for praxis, and set yourself up for disappointment and alienation from the movement (“they lied to me!”) if you step foot here and stay for extended periods of time.
I’d consider unsustainable “ultra” beliefs wrecker behavior by hostile forces, when there is already a lot to admire in China, just as there are things to reasonably gripe about.
I actually prefer that people try to dodge the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, simply because while the Western media distorts what actually happened, people died.
Since the CPC censors news of 6/4, the most favorable story by overseas Chinese is that there was a simultaneous proletarian uprising, that the killings did not occur on the square itself, that it was a combined movement by Maoists and Liberals, that it was not unprovoked, because the rioters attacked the troops first, taking their weapons, and tanks were only seen as necessary because of the vehemence and violence of the insurgency.
But we’re still downplaying the killing of civilians, even armed and violent ones, by the People’s Liberation Army. That, for us, is not a good look, so that’s something I’d rather dodge.
Nobody is downplaying anything. Saying people died but it wasn’t near the ‘100k people died and were crushed and hosed down the drains’ level of horrors isn’t downplaying.
The thing with the whole event is that it is near impossible to have a honest discussion about it due to the enormous stream of bullshit that is published and repeated about the event.
No, we arent.
We’re describing the reality of the situation with respect for everyone involved.
Liberals will tell you it was a liberal, peacefull protest that was violently repressed and 10k people died. All complete lies, which do diservice to the actual tragedy that happened that day.
We will tell you a balanced account of it with respect to both sides and informed by the history of it.
One respects the dead, the other propogandizes them. We respect them.
But am I pointing out a real and difficult problem?
To cut a long story short, the People’s Liberation Army was called in to break an insurrection surrounding protests in Tiananmen Square. Old PLA elites are on record as having opposed intervention, and there was considerable dissent within the Party over the heavy action employed to counter a protest that had gotten out of hand. And people died.
This is the essential problem with Western media ops; i.e, if they say that there’s corruption in China, you can’t deny it because Xi Jinping is running an anti-corruption campaign and people get taken away by MPS and MSS under the auspices of the Organization Bureau.
However, it gives them the opportunity to spin it, to exaggerate it, to deploy it for their own propaganda purposes.
In the corruption case, we have the case wherein we can point to improved (previously) Corruption Perceptions Indices by the Western-aligned Transparency International NGO.
But in the Tiananmen Square incident, it seems like plain denialism to deliver the necessary nuance.
I mean, you can downvote me for this, but it is a reasonable topic of discussion as to how to handle this talking point, and generally how to deal with “it’s true, but exaggerated and spun” propaganda as the West seems to currently prefer.
Put it simply, how would you, as a party official in China explain to the famalies of the unarmed police officers who where lynched, flayed and burned alive by protestors that you did not intervene?
Some level of intervention was needed unfortunatly, its a tragedy that it escelated so far. We just call it what it is, a tragedy.
Because you’re arguing against the liberal orthodoxy, facts that go against the religion would be filtered into ‘denialism’, any scepticsm of the dogma needs to be attacked violently.
You’re sort of making my point for me, though. It’s easy to get dragged down the road of defending the killings of civilians, whereas it just makes us look bad.
I’d hold it happened, and given wiser handling by Zhongnanhai, the deaths could have at least been reduced or even avoided altogether, as in Shanghai.
As is, Zhongnanhai thought they were on the verge of being toppled, called in the PLA to forcefully disperse both peaceful and non-peaceful demonstrators, and here we are.
The focus should be more on how the West weaponizes this in a neoconservative fashion to justify military threat against China, including how the incident is spun and exaggerated.
The full Tank Man video, published by CBS, should be the rabbit hole needed to pull misled Westerners in.
Im not doing that, people stop becoming ‘civallians’ when they pick up rifles and start lynching unarmed police officers in a communist state.
This is blaming the response rather than the instigators that killed so many people the military had to respond.
This all comes with some level, criticizing the people who instigated the violence, which wasnt China, it was the rioters calling for ‘rivers of blood’ months before the protests.
Gaza was the Israeli response to Hamas militants (democratically supported by the people of Gaza) breaching Israeli defenses, attacking military bases, then seizing Israeli civilians as hostages.
Does Palestinian or Hamas violence justify the collateral killing of over 30,000 Palestinians and the likely famine-induced death of over 180,000 people? After all, the Gaza government’s attack suggests they’re no longer civilians. I think the answer is no.
Once again, the maximalist line is a trap. Dodge if you’re ill-informed, if you’re not, focus on how the Western media plays this up and distorts it to justify an anti-China narrative.
I’m not on the side of the protesters, in fact, I’m happy they were forcefully dispersed because that meant a hard end to liberal subversion in China, at least in the short-term. But we have to be careful about how we counter Western disinformation.
I mean these things arent comparable, I dont think anyone would argue against the IOF considering the hamas fighters to be valid combat targets when they started killing people. Like we can disagree with the ideology of the IOF while still recongising they had some cassius bell to open fire on armed combatents.
No it doesnt, but it isnt relevant to what we’re discussing. If hamas won the war, then a splinter group of hamas fighters started killing Palestine police officers who are unarmed id have more of an issue with it.
As Communists, do we really have to obsess over blood-for-blood violence? Applying this to the Brits justifies the complete genocide of the British people, given the starvation that occurred in India during colonialism.
I’m currently in China. Defending the party goes as far as saying “if the Party had a secure way to avoid civilian deaths without compromising the Revolution, it would have done so, but it had no choice. The loss of life is truly regrettable, on both sides.” We don’t need to say the protesters deserved it (although Chai Ling probably did, but she got out without a scratch.)
oh is that why it’s easily findable on Baidu? western chauvinist garbage
The Tian’anmen Square ‘Massacre’: The West’s Most Persuasive, Most Pervasive Lie | Mango Press
Another View of Tiananmen | Red Sails
I’m in China, and please enter the search query that produces results on the Tiananmen Incident of 1989.
天安门事件 links me to the peaceful protests of 1976. I guess I can search Baike, but this is not a subject for common discussion.
wapbaike.baidu.com/search/none?word=六四&pn=0&rn=10
I do admire your enthusiasm for protecting China against defamation, but there is a difference between useful support and going too far.
I am willing to admit that I am wrong, however. There are mentions of a 64 Tiananmen incident on Baidu, but nothing that specifically focuses on the event. I would like you to point me to search strings on Baidu that clearly focuses on and presents an official line on the Tiananmen demonstrations that ended on June 4th, 1989.
https://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-11/09/content_1989024.htm it’s report number 590.
Yeah, looks like a bunch of State Council publications dating to 1989 around the time of the incident.
实事求是?
If you had guidance from the Foreign Ministry on the topic, it’d be better. I’ll go over it tomorrow, it’s late.
Thanks for the link!
Jake Sullivan is in China too, I wouldn’t take his fucking word for anything
Screenshot it if you can find results on Baidu. I see some ancillary results discussing how production etc was disrupted by 6-4, but nothing discussing the incident itself, although I still need to go through the State Council logs.
Basically, in parts of the left-wing community, there’s a tendency to overidolize China, when China itself admits that Mao was 30% wrong, and considers itself a developing country that is still searching for solutions.
The problem is, if you become completely divorced from reality, you impede your capability for praxis, and set yourself up for disappointment and alienation from the movement (“they lied to me!”) if you step foot here and stay for extended periods of time.
I’d consider unsustainable “ultra” beliefs wrecker behavior by hostile forces, when there is already a lot to admire in China, just as there are things to reasonably gripe about.
🤔