Lost memories. (Except for a few people with red umbrellas.)
To me, collective amnesia of the Tiananmen incident 21 years ago fascinates and scares me. Is our understanding of history durable and resilient, ever marching on closer to the Truth? Or is it easily manipulated by commercial interests and by political agenda? Is the past completely malleable to serve the interests of those who seek to control the present and thus the future?
While the online commons of Twitter rages with the #8964 and #6421wj hashtags (see also ChinaGeeks’ translation of tweets), the events of 21 years ago seem largely irrelevant to the struggles of daily life in modern China today. Life in China is so fast-paced, demanding and full of constant change. Those who are not struggling, are far too busy pursuing the seemingly unlimited opportunities available to the privileged. Perhaps some who actually know about the Tiananmen incident are engaged in what Forbes’ Gady Epstein calls “willed forgetting in service of today’s prosperity.”
Honestly (and I may regret admitting this), I personally couldn’t care less that Foursquare got blocked (see David Feng’s blog on how this went down). Yes, I should defend the online rights of my friends who want to spam their social networks check-in with their favorite Location Based Service (LBS), because next They will be coming after my own beloved social sites. Yes, They certainly have in the past. But for some reason, Foursquare seems so trivial in comparison to what happened 21 years ago. See Slate for a moving collection of photos…looking through these pictures is a far better way to “check-in” to the past.
Alec Ash writes an interesting post on Danwei that provides insights into Beida university students today vs. those 21 years ago. Danwei itself is an interesting small case study of how you can serve the Motherland with great heart and personal sacrifice, only to get punished for doing so. In this case, via getting their site blocked. Because of the GFW, I’ve excerpted heavily from the post:
What parallels, then, exist between the two generations? For all the noise about the exceptionality of China’s ‘post-80s’ youth (80后), there’s quite a few. If it’s dangerous to generalize about the class of ’89 from the actions of a few, then it’s less risky to generalize about students as a whole. Beida students today, like Lee before them, are concerned with their grades first, their fun second, and politics even further down the list. Yes, there are the nationalistic ‘angry youth’ (愤青) just as there are those who vocally criticize their government. But most are simply too busy preparing for their exams or TOEFL to care.
The second big similarity, though, is that there’s discontent beneath the surface, on a range of specific issues. For one, the sheer pressure and competitiveness of the world they find themselves in: 10 hours of study a day for many, just like it was in high school, and just like it will be in the best jobs. Then there’s the inequality, corruption and nepotism, just like in Lee’s day － perennial problems. A more recent one is the escalating price of housing in the big cities. Where thirty years ago their parents could buy a property relatively easy, students today are facing ever-more terrifying digits. There’s much to be unhappy about.
…Another is that the West doesn’t cut it as an alternative to admire, like it used to. Sure, everyone watches Gossip Girl or Prison Break (depending on gender), but the idolization of everything Western which Lee describes － and which has a strong whiff of the May Fourth movement to it － simply isn’t there. And when it comes to politics, there’s a definite mistrust that the Western model could work in China. A metaphor told me by more than one young Chinese describes the Tiananmen generation of having just come out of a dark room, dazzled by the brightness. Their generation, the implication goes, has adjusted to the light.
I’ve heard Beida students describe their predecessors as “impulsive” and self-interested (why “I don’t like Wang Dan or Wu’er Kaixi”, one friend bluntly said). But how do they describe their own generation? Last week alone, I heard three self-definitions: one of a “pragmatic” generation, thinking of their own futures. Another of a generation with “no ideals”, nothing to fight for. But my favorite was simply a generation with “more choice”. Or put otherwise, a generation with more to lose from making noise, and more to gain from silence.
Alec first wrote about the differences about Beida students today vs. the late 80s on his blog 6. The topic of the “disillusionment with the West” is definitely one that has gotten stronger after the 2008 financial crisis and the perception that China has weather the storm much better than the rest of the world. Perhaps there is some idea that if they demonstrators had gotten their way, Western prescriptions would have been followed to the detriment of Chinese society. Instead, Chinese leaders followed their own path adapted to the conditions of China at the time, and deserve some credit for the economic results that have come about.
Some have commemorated this day. From a smattering of red umbrellas on the square itself, to the now traditional demonstrations in Hong Kong (which has experienced some harassment), there are some efforts to bring people together to remember what happened. Here’s Taiwan’s Ma Ying Jeou’s speech in translation. Peking Duck shares a new report and also shares his own feelings:
For me, this remains an open wound, and as long as the CCP keeps stonewalling, the much beloved phrase “Reform and Opening Up” will ring at least partially hollow. Those who keep demanding more contrition from the Japanese for their crimes against humanity should demand the same from their own rulers.
I don’t have the same feelings as Peking Duck. I feel the cadence of life in China, the all-consuming nature of the daily struggle for Chinese at all levels of society, and the sense that understanding modern history in China requires much more effort and discomfort than Westerners may realize. Modern China is simply too busy to remember. Perhaps Gady’s “willed forgetting in service of today’s prosperity” is more like “inadvertent forgetting as a result of today’s prosperity.”
Tiananmen is not an “open wound” to me. Instead, it creates an uncomfortable realization of how fragile our conception of history is, and how the busyness of life can allow the past to be forgotten.
Photo credit: Bendilaowai.
Thanks for the mention, Elliott. The only point I disagree with is that it’s been forgotten due to the busyness of life. In neighboring Hong Kong there are still sizable demonstrations, and the world still remembers the day vividly. Just look at twitter last night. It is only where the incident has been filtered out of the search engines and banned from any discussion in the media that it is forgotten. The Nanjing Massacre is not forgotten, and those remembering it are just as busy as those forgetting the TSM. Out of sight, out of mind. Gady is spot on – this is willed forgetfulness, and the one doing the willing is the government. That is the high price that comes with a one-party authoritarian state; Big Brother controls the brainwaves and can convince people that ignorance is strength and freedom is slavery.
Thanks Richard. I appreciate your point of view. My point is that I think we are moving from a period of “willed forgetfulness” enforced via the information control mechanisms of the government into a period where that control is no longer necessary because people just don’t care. This new period might not be for another 10-20 years but it certainly feels like we’re moving in that direction.
The Nanjing Massacre is another example of how history is being employed by those in the present to control the future. (BTW: nice reference to Orwell in your comment).
So I see your point that people are not too busy to remember historical events when it is made convenient for them to do so. My point is that I think this is universal not just for China…the narrative of our life and our society is shaped by what is most convenient and accessible. I find this somewhat disturbing.
nice post … hong kong does not seem to be too busy to remember 4 june tongiht …. quite a statement, seems official 150,000 count … but they are being co-opted rapidly, tis a token gesture
Thanks Gregory. I wonder if there will ever be a “truth & reconciliation” process, or if it will continue to be swept under the rug indefinitely. Certainly I feel that this phenomenon of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is true for many of the aspects of modern Chinese history, such as the Cultural Revolution.
“The 4th June” will have a conclusion when the time is right, but not before and not now.
Since it’s coming to the World Cup season, let’s use the football rules as a metaphor:
It’s like a foul in a football game. The 4th June may have been a foul by the then government (or not but Chinese people will make a decision when the time is right) on Chinese people in its own half, but China is now assembling a success attack at opposition’s goal. Only idiots & those with dubious motives would ask the referee (the majority of Chinese people not the few dissidents) to stop the game and look at the foul. China has the advantage, the referee decided to keep the game going. End of story.
When the West stopped being interested or able to force Chinese government’s hands, when the majority of Chinese are ready and want to look into this period of history, it will be done. Not before and not now.
A former student leader
Not sure that the analogy works. I think its more like: The coach got upset at a player and punched him out. In fact the coach injured the player and its not clear if the player can ever play again. The rest of the players were afraid and didn’t say anything. Meanwhile, the coach and the team start to win more and more victories on the field. Should any of the players go public with the abuse of 1 of their former players? It might lead to the coach being dismissed and their chances of winning being diminished.
ChineseinUK, are you saying that you are “a former student leader”? didn’t understand the last bit of your comment.
Not sure your analogy works. But since you introduced coach into the story, I’ll try to accommodate :)
There was an argument between a coach & some of his players at the beginning of a tournament about their game strategy after the team had lost both of its opening games. The argument led to a fight and some of the players got hurt – The coach was a martial art genius :) The coach said it was self-defence and most of his players agreed with him or had remained silent. One player, and his mum, however disagreed and insisted the coach had attacked him unprovoked and left him permanently disabled and demanded that the coach was brought back to its home city to face an immediate trial.
Meanwhile, the team adapted to the new strategy and was progressing well in the tournament and winning straight games with the potential of lifting the final trophy.
Do you suggest the coach is taken out of the game immediately to face a trial back at the team’s home city, which could well mean that the team goes back to it old stragety & lose all future games, on the strength of one player’s claim & the pressure his mum has been putting on the team, or wait until the end of tournament? Or would you agree with me that it’s best to let the coach continue working with the team until the end of the tournament?
Before you answer the question, let me also give you some background knowledge: this player was the main advocate for the old strategy so if the team had lifted the final trophy, it would prove without doubt that what he advocated for was wrong. And his mum? As it turned out, she was a strong supporter of the team that was predicted to win the tournament if her son’s team had not been doing so well……
To answer your question, I was a student leader in 1989, but not in Beijing, so was not an eye witness to what happened in TAM Square.
But I knew someone who was amongst the last batch of students that left the square safely. She said the troops didn’t fire at any students nor did the tank roll over anyone in the square. I also befriended someone who claimed the troop fired at students and her best friend died in her arms in TAM Square. She obtained political asylum in England on the strength of this account but later told me in confidence, in an attempt to get me to apply for political asylum as well to stay in England, that she was not even in Beijing on 4th June 1989. I stopped being a friend to this lady as I can’t stand the fact that she continued with her lies about China for personal gains whilst watching China suffering the unfair image & treatment in the West in this regard.
I also knew someone who said he was the leader of Shanghai student movement and if he had returned to China, he would have been killed by Chinese government (that’s how one qualified for political asylum in England). But when his father died soon after his application, he retracted his application and went home for his father’s funeral and guess what, nothing happened to him in China and he returned to England safely and completed his PhD at Cambridge.
So I decided long time ago, long before Western media had changed their tunes, that no one died in TAM square and those who claimed so had dubious reasons or hidden agendas.
Nearly all major Western media acknowledged many years ago that no students were killed in the square itself and that nearly all the casualties took place on the side streets. The only reason this myth was allowed to perpetuate is that the Chinese government was, shall we say, not very forthcoming with information about what actually happened.
“Nearly all major Western media acknowledged many years ago that no students were killed in the square itself “
You’re only telling half of the story here, not too dissimilar to what Western media frequently do:
Yes, Western media did start to acknowledge no students were killed in the square in recent years, but did they broadcast their “new” findings with the same prominence that they gave when they first misled the Western public and when they repeated their coverage, conveniently with images of tanks & bloody bodies, every 4th June?
No. I did a mini “survey” recently in my office, out of 23 English colleagues I asked, not a single one was aware of this “correction”, all sited machine gun shots & tank rolling over students in the square as what they “believed” to have happened.
A minority of Westners, such as those married Chinese partners, studied or worked in China or having other specific interests/relationship in/with China, may have taken the time & efforts to finding out a bit more about what really happened, but they are a minority.
Chinese, I’m glad you did a survey. Here’s the best way to research it: Go look at a cross-section of coverage this past week, or from last year, the 20th anniversary when there was more coverage than ever. Then show me which major media (not pundits like Glenn Beck and Maureen Dowd) continue to write that students were killed inside the square. You may be able to find a couple. but years ago the media cleaned this story up as the facts emerged. Your mini-survey is BS. You can hold lots of surveys where people give the wrong information. If you ask people in the US the names of one or two Supreme Court judges they’ll either not know or give the wrong names. Will you blame the media for their ignorance? Most people simply don’t know much about current events and history. Now, if those people you surveyed were China watchers, people with a deep interest in the subject, I can promise you they’d have no false memories. Because the facts are out there in the media for those who care to know. The TSM was an ongoing story, with bits of information becoming available over a long period of time, and much of it still remains a mystery. Obviously with each new fact the newspapers, years after the fact, are not going to put up a banner headline on the front page. They all corrected the initial erroneous reports (mistakes that were made primarily because of China’s news blackout) and many articles and an excellent popular documentary, The Gate of Heavenly Peace, have helped correct the record. But by then most people had lost interest and had their own impressions of the event. This is how the human mind woks.
Richard,
Can’t find a reply button on your latest reply, June 6, 2010 at 1:53 am, so am posting this here.
What are you trying to argue in your 2nd reply? That “Western media acknowledged many years ago that no students were killed in the square itself”, as you did in your 1st reply?
Did I ever say “Western media NEVER acknowledged many years ago that no students were killed in the square itself”? No. On the contrary, I acknowledged this in my opening statements “Yes, Western media did start to acknowledge no students were killed in the square in recent years”. As matter of fact, it was already acknowledged in my original reply to Elliot, when I wrote “long before Western media had changed their tunes”.
I don’t need to do any research, as I know very well what Western media has been writing about the issue, but my reply was about the fact the “corrections” had not reached the masses in the West.
You are right in your latest reply that “most people had lost interest and had their own impressions of the event” so those “small prints” that went up to “correct the initial erroneous reports” did very little to change the situations, which was what my reply to you was all about.
Unfortunately, with repeated occurrence of this kind of “BIG HEADLINE erroneous reports” first, “SMALL PRINT corrections later” approach of Western media reporting of China, the masses in the West had accumulated some very unfounded negative impressions toward China over the decades, or possibly centuries, which in turn encouraged Western media to create more “BIG erroneous (negative) reports” to kowtow what their readers crave for (unfortunately most media outlays cater for the masses not China watchers)…… the cycle continues and earlier “erroneous reports” provide the basis & reinforce later “erroneous reports”…… and this was what I was objecting to in my reply to your reply.
Let me tell you what my original post was about:
Something terrible happened 21 years ago. Personally, I disagree with Chinese government blocking relevant information inside China, not because I believe Chinese government is lying (I have no sufficient information to form a positive or negative opinion on Chinese government’s statistics), but because I have more faith in Chinese people to make informed decisions themselves. However I’m equally & painfully aware of the fact that the intentions of those former student leaders were quite different from what the event had been turned into – many with dubious intentions, hidden agendas & grudges against CCP are using the event as a way to contain China, punish CCP & create chaos in China.
The media are playing an intended or unintended role in this: their biased reporting creates the stage for those who has dubious intentions to put on shows for the consumption & support of the uninformed masses in the West who in turn give pressure & provide support to Western governments, open & hidden political organisations/individuals to put pressure on China to submit to their version of the event.
As far as I can see, even if the results of thorough investigation prove Chinese government’s statistics, there are plenty of people & organisations that would not have given up and they would do anything they can to muddle the water or even create confusions to sabotage the investigation. They are not necessarily interested in finding out about the truth, they are just latching onto this “convenient” ignorance of the Western masses for their dubious intentions, which was why I said “When the West stopped being interested or able to force Chinese government’s hands, when the majority of Chinese are ready and want to look into this period of history, it will be done. Not before and not now.”
Unfortunately, with repeated occurrence of this kind of “BIG HEADLINE erroneous reports” first, “SMALL PRINT corrections later” approach of Western media reporting of China…
There we have it. You think this is an example of the US media being unfair to China, which explains your belligerence. False. This is the media approach to everything, not only China. This is simply how news works. In the fast-paced vortex of breaking news, nearly all news reports will have errors, usually serious, because they are rushing to get the story out in real time. I was watching the 911 attack on television when one reporter said a 3rd plane had hit the WTC. Then the story gets corrected. And even with immediate corrections, myths stick. This has absolutely nothing to do with China and everything to do with journalism as practiced everywhere. And I come from journalism, it was my job for years, and I know how it works. Imperfect, but it’s the best system we have. You cannot have pure objectivity as news breaks. The media then did what they always do, revising the story and running corrections. Every year, they run lengthy retrospectives and none of them repeats the myth. The truth is there in plain sight – for all who wish to know it. If they choose to remain ignorant, as most people do, that’s not the media’s fault. The media are doing their job. The breaking news always gets big print, the correction always gets smaller print. This is especially true in a story like the TSM, where information only became available piecemeal, with so many conflicting reports that make it very difficult to discern what exactly happened, and this remains true to this day. There are still huge conflicts and discrepancies over what actually happened. If all that this boils down to is your belief that the media should have used bigger headlines, I have bad news for you: Even if they did, many people would hold onto the myth. There are so many misconceptions out there about Iraq collaborating with the September 11 terrorists, about Bin Laden having worked for the CIA, about Tim Geithner working for Goldman Sachs, and I can go one forever. All of these myths have been exploded in large and small type, and yet they cling because a.) many people are lazy and/or gullible and hold onto their first impression, and b.) we have a tendency to believe what we want to believe. All of these myths reinforced people’s pre-conceived notions, as with the TSM – the notion that the students were saints and the PLA were killers. This is a false notion, but people nearly always see things in black and white, as you can see by following the coverage of and reactions to the Israel-Gaza crisis this very minute. Good reporting, full of facts and truth, are irrelevant when people choose to believe what they want to believe, irrespective of the facts in front of their faces.
Apologies for the remark in my last comment, “which explains your belligerence.” I meant to delete it and submitted it too soon. It was stupid (and belligerent) of me.
Apologies accepted. Emotions do creep into people’s writing when they are not careful and I’ve done similar things myself.
However, Richard, some people put words in other’s mouths, but I think you go one step further: you create false targets for your argument when there was not even one to start with from my part. As I pointed out in my previous reply, you spent your 2nd reply arguing for something I had agreed with right from the beginning. This time you again spend another reply arguing about things I never said.
Did I ever say “US media was unfair to China”? No. As matter of fact though I have been to many places around the world I have never set foot on US soil so I have always been extremely careful not to talk about US when I’m not qualified to do so.
Did I ever say this approach was only to China? No. But when this approach is played on countries you are relatively familiar with, you’re in a position to make an educated judgement and smell a rat when there is one. But when it relates to a country you know very little about, it’s very easy to be misled, which is what I believe Western media has done to the masses and why China watchers are able to understand China issues better than Western masses, not only because they would naturally have spent more time & attention on the topics but also because they have sufficient background knowledge to make more informed decisions.
Did I ever say “That’s the media’s fault”? No. But can you deny the media plays a role in all this mis-information?
Did I ever say “all that this boils down to is ……that the media should have used bigger headlines”? No. What I was trying to say was: you can’t rely on headline reports to form your opinions about China.
You were right when you said “All of these myths reinforced people’s pre-conceived notions”. But when there are people with dubious intentions taking advantage of these “mis-pre-conceived notions”, and when these people have the potential of forcing Chinese government’s hands, then the time would not be right yet to review the issue, which was what my comments were about, as opposed to Elliott’s notion that modern China is too busy to remember.
Okay, I’m with you. It was this line that, I admit, set me off in my last comment: “Unfortunately, with repeated occurrence of this kind of “BIG HEADLINE erroneous reports” first, “SMALL PRINT corrections later” approach of Western media reporting of China…” I didn’t read as carefully what you said after that. I get quite frustrated when people argue, or seem to argue, that China is somehow treated differently and with greater prejudice than other countries. And in the line I quote above, I did perceive that you were singling out China with the reference to ” Western media reporting of China.”
The media played a role in the misinformation and the subsequent clarification, as it usually does, sometimes with mixed success. Of course, as you say, China watchers know the facts better than the general public, because they follow it and pay attention, reading all the articles as they come out. But they know this through the media; very few go out on the streets and perform independent research. I read first that students were killed in the square, and soon I learned they were not killed in the square – because I followed the story. Your average American citizen simply doesn’t care as much, so of course they’ll have a sketchy and often false/incomplete understanding of what happened; of course your co-workers didn’t know the full story of the TSM. This applies to all topics, so I don’t understand why you blame the media. What happened and what didn’t happen is in the media for all to see. But I think we’ve exhausted this subject. Maybe we can agree to disagree on this.
But when there are people with dubious intentions taking advantage of these “mis-pre-conceived notions”, and when these ”
Who exactly are these people with dubious intentions who possess so much power they can force China’s hands? This sounds vague at best, and like a strawman at worst. I maintain that this in itself is a myth. Who on earth with such authority is taking advantage of the old myth of people getting shot in the square? If such people existed, they wouldn’t need to take advantage of the myth, because the truth is devastating enough. It didn’t matter where the victims were standing when they were killed, inside a square or on a side street. The tanks still crushed them and the bullets still mowed them down.
Hi Richard,
I think you are naïve if you don’t think there are people whose life & career depend on China bashing. I happen to be very close friends with a couple, see my comments before, in the past. There are also people, out of good intentions sometimes, rely on China bashing to make themselves feel better.
I had a run in with Amnesty International recently. They organised a memorial for the 4th June victims and sent out invitations to local Chinese. I turned up and said, if you’re commemorating the lose of innocent lives, I’m here with you. If you’re using the occasion for China bashing, as your leaflet seem to indicate, then I object to your event.
I asked what evidence they had that Chinese government was lying about the number of people died, they couldn’t provide any apart from popular media reports which didn’t have solid evidence either. When I asked if they had spoken to people who were in Beijing on that night & did they know how ordinary mainland Chinese truly feel about the event. They said they didn’t and had not spoken to anyone from mainland China.
I invited them to meet a couple of my friends, both came from Beijing and one of them had parents both were doctors worked on the ngiht. I also invited them to our next National Day celebrations where they would have the opprtunities of meeting & talking to many ordinary mainlander Chinese, some newcomers to England, some old hands like myself and some who had taken up British citizenship so were no longer under the slightest control of Chinese government. Guess what, no one took up either of my invitations.
I had very distinct impression that whilst they would welcome mainlander Chinese to take part in their activities, they weren’t very interested in finding out what really happened on 4th June 21 years ago or what ordinary mainlander Chinese, those they were supposed to be helping, think & feel. They were more interested in doing something good and helping the poor Chinese to fight their evil government was what they pride themselves in – talking of “strawman”!
You were right “It didn’t matter where the victims were standing when they were killed, inside a square or on a side street.”, except where they were standing could be part of the circumstances of how they died. If they were run over by tanks whilst sitting peacefully in the square is one thing, if they were hit by astray bullets fired from inexperienced young soldiers who thought their lives were in danger under mob attack, then it’s a different matter.
Elliot,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts – I do however object to your somewhat resigned statement that “people just do not care” without more critically questioning the reason behind and the dangers it implies. It is surely not “inadvertently” but a direct intended result of the mind control imposed by the CCP and their version of a “new deal” (provide economic growth for part of population and foreign investors and in return they give up on freedom). Iconically for the CCP unmanageable waves of Chinese nationalism/self-righteousness are increasing and corruption is flourishing (every now and then a CCP official is scarified to satisfy the masses) and without any (real) proper checks-and-balances/opposition to let out steam the society can explode.
This – of course – is not unique to China; from Germany in the 30ies (willed forgetfulness+nationalism turning into numb “not caring” by large part of the population with disastrous results) to Darfour more recently (Sudanese National Congress Party willingly inciting genocide) are just two examples of the dangerous outcome of mind controlling one-party systems.
What to me is most concerning is without people (inside and outside these countries) standing up and holding regimes accountable then lies will become truth and tragedies will become non-events.
Niels, thanks for your thoughts as well. Some reactions:
1. “somewhat resigned” – Yes, I am somewhat resigned to the fact that people are busy, struggling, and pragmatic. And conditions have gotten much better over the last 21 years in China.
2. “dangers it implies” – Yes, I realize the dangers. I ended my post with: “uncomfortable realization of how fragile our conception of history is” which I think is exactly the danger it implies. I thought a lot about Hannah Arendt’s concept of “the banality of evil” and her book Eichmann in Jerusalem while writing this post. I was too tired to figure out how to work in the themes from that book since I read it a while ago. Have you read it? I think intellectual laziness, physical exhaustion, and economic hardship all conspire to making us all susceptible to “the banality of evil”
3. “mind control” – Niels, if I didn’t know that you had direct experience with China I’d dismiss you as being ignorant and shaped by mainstream Western media who likes to sensationalize to drive ratings and ad revenues. But since I know you are familiar with China, I’d say that this theme of “mind control” is very misleading to our Western friends without any first-hand experience with China.
4. “direct intended result” – Yes, you are right. My point is that *now* that media and education suppression has made it much more convenient for Chinese to “know the Truth,” those Chinese who choose to forget may be involved in “willful forgetting” (Gady’s phrase) OR “inadvertent forgetting” (my phrase). Let’s not pretend that everyone is involved in a dramatic choice to not talk about this incident and thereby comply with “the new deal” (your phrase)
5. Actually, the official media is being used to expose corruption. It seems that the official media does behave like “real” media in part, and in other ways behaves more like an “open source analysis” intelligence agency. So there are checks and balances. And the social web is part of it. Professor Jiang Min calls it “spaces of authoritarian deliberation” where people can speak out and be heard…within limits, of course.
6. “not unique to China” – totally agree. That, I think, was a big point of my post which obviously was lost on you. And that’s what makes it scary.
7. Agree with your final point. I just sympathize with the poor construction worker who is working day and night to send money back to their family. Easy for us to call for them, from the comfort of our home or Starbuck’s cafe, to “stand up and holding regimes accountable.” Closer to home, the financial crisis of 2008 just happened and I’m not sure I see a lot of people standing up and holding our oligopolistic businesses and our government responsible for squandering my Social Security and my children’s financial future. What should we do about that, on a personal level? I feel too busy to dig into it, because I need to focus on making some money to make up for all that I lost in that crisis.
Vaclav Havel: “any society that is alive is a society with history”
… and large chunks of China’s have gone missing.
Very nice quote Alec. But look around you. People who either don’t know about TAM or know but don’t care, are clearly part of a society that is very much alive, right? And certainly Chinese society has some “history” — at least the approved portions of history, namely post-1978 (with a few edits like the event we’re discussing). Maybe I would edit Havel’s saying as follows: “any society that is alive is a society with mythology.” Perhaps all societies (and their governments) value history not as an objective record of the past, but as a value-laden mythology that binds that society together in the present and propels it forward into the future. How much the government actively “shapes” history is just a matter of degree.
I don’t mean to defend the practice of historical revisionism — I would challenge the most literal interpretation of Havel’s saying because China certainly seems alive and vibrant…despite its collective amnesia.
Do me a favor. Ask one of your Beida friends to tell you about how big their history books were. According to one of my friends who studied in the US and also in China, the history books for China, which famously has 5000 years of history, are a hecka lot shorter than the US History (AP level) textbooks. Why does a 230+ country have much longer history books than a 5000 year old civilization? I’d love to get your thoughts about that…I’m sure the answer is not as simple (and damning) as it initially appears to Western eyes. Curious to get some more insight on this via your friends and you. I’m open minded about this one.
BTW, your Danwei article was really the most interesting piece I found out there about TAM this year.
Are Chinese characters ~21.74 times shorter than English words on average? :D
Said the same on GBuzz and Twitter myself. *disgusting adulation*
Beida students today are not much different from Beida students in March 1989. If you walked into Beida campus in March 1989, you would see students who seemed aloof and cared about nothing but exams and their future careers. I trust that if needs be, today students will turn into May 1989 mode.
Yes, Alec Ash’s article includes a quote with a scholar who was at Beida in 1989 and concurs with your point.
“control is no longer necessary because people just don’t care.”
Obviously, China thinks (or fears) that people care, because of the enormous controls they continue to use — from jailing people (even threatening the dead students elderly mothers) to banning books, editing stuff out of textbooks, blocking websites, and barring any coverage in newspaper, radio, TV or the Internet. If there were apathy, there wouldn’t be need for Beijing’s time-consuming and expensive effort to keep this under wraps.
It didn’t stop 150,000 people from showing up in Hong Kong. And HK is the busiest, most commercial, modern, cynical place I’ve ever been.
Everywhere outside Mainland media controls, it’s pretty clear how much caring there is.
I wrote a feature about the many HK bookstores that specialize in selling banned books (mostly about 6/4) to mainland Chinese tourists. They line the shelves in the area of HK Airport with the Mainland departures. There is huge interest.
I think the whole “in” or “around” Tiananmen Square debate is pretty stupid. It’s like asking the average Chinese student / journalist about 9/11, and then nitpicking if they know the exact location of the Towers in New York. So we should call it the Kinda Near Tiananmen Square Massacre? It misses the point.
What’s important is the big picture: The Chinese government rolled its own people over with tanks and then lied about it for two decades. And until they stop lying, people are going to be upset.
I agree with you the exact “in” or “around” TAM Square debate is not important, which incidentally was not the point I was making. What’s important is how many people died and how they died.
You seem very certain Chinese government intentionally rolled its own people over with tanks, can you please tell me under what circumstances & how many people were rolled over by tanks and how did you come to your conclusions?
If you don’t have sufficient evidence, then you’re simply speculating, which means the rest of your comments are not worth the paper, or bites, it was written/consuming.
ChineseinUK – Thanks for calling my comment worthless. So you’ll only consider my opinions if I can list the number of people killed and the way each was killed? By that standard, zero people would be allowed to contribute here, because that information has been lost.
The answer lies with Beijing. If they’d allowed an open investigation and coverage, we’d know the details. I want to know as much as you.
Crushed by tanks, shot, beaten to death, died later of wounds — I’m not going to argue details. There’s plenty of material online. Students and troops died in different and terrible ways. The big picture is that government killed civilians, then covered it up.
It was intentional. Even with stray bullets, even with the lowest number (263, from the Chinese government) it’s too high for it to have been an accident.
One of the world’s largest standing armies couldn’t detain a crowd who were basically unarmed? (Molotov cocktails are nasty, but they are no match for assault rifles).
In odd ways, we have similar goals. I want China to get better – to be kinder, saner, more civilized, more open — and it frustrates me when it screws up. Why did half of Hong Kong flee to Canada after 1989? They were horrified of their own nation, and that’s a difficult feeling to have.
Every June, China looks silly. The rest of the world runs articles, publishes books and holds memorials. Meanwhile, the last “Tiananmen Square” story in China Daily was about a shuttle bus.
So long as that happens, the non-Chinese press will predominate, because China is not offering an alternative voice.
On your Telegraph blog, you imply that the Chinese will deal with this when the Western media stop talking about it. But why? For more freedom in China, we need censorship in the West?
Why can’t China come clean, regardless of what other people say? Isn’t 21 years too long already?
P.S. And good night. Or good morning in the UK. I sometimes work late, too, and I often can’t sleep. I know how it is.
Hi Joyce,
If you read my reply carefully, you would have realised I didn’t call your comments worthless, unless you were simply speculating. I can’t stop you from deciding that you WERE speculating hence your comments WERE worthless as logic went in my statement, but please don’t put words in my mouth.
You don’t need to have evidence to contribute here, but you do need evidence to back up your opinions if you’re accusing someone failing of doing something which was based on your opinion. Otherwise, anyone can be asked to do anything others want. For instant, how would you feel if I asked a judge to send you to prison for GBH, without giving him the details of how many people had been hurt by you last night and how cruelly you did it unprovoked? Or put it in a political context, should China have the right to call for Tony Blair to be sent to prison for unlawful invasion of Iraq or Bush for behind the 9/11 tragedy, without sufficient evidence?
There is plenty of evidence backing up opposite sides of the argument and there is no clear conclusion, as far as I know, and agreed by Richard judged by his statement in this thread: “this has been rehashed so many times in so many threads, and it always ends in gridlock”. So yes, I’m afraid, if you want to base your argument on the notion that Chinese government intentionally rolled its own people over with tanks, you need present more than just “I believe it so”.
As for China being put under pressure by many in the West, you & Richard should talk to each other as Richard doesn’t believe anyone with power are putting pressure on China, history will be the judge. CCP may be guilty of the accused crimes, or it might not. Remember: Nelson Mandela had been on US’s terrorist list for decades until very recently!
Meanwhile, I’ll continue my search for the truth, reserving my judgment until I feel I have sufficient evidence.
Good night to you too, or good morning :)
There are definitely some NGOs with a vested interest in making China seem as bad as possible when it comes to human rights, though China tends to give them lots of stuff to work with. And I believe you when you say some may not care as much as they should about what actually happened. But I do not believe they have the power in any way to force China’s hands. MNCs and the US government have ignored them altogether, and they’re the ones with the power.
I’ve spoken with several people who were there and read many accounts. I know that some of the things some of the protesters did were pretty atrocious. But there are more than enough accounts to tell you many, many of the fallen were not hit accidentally by stray bullets by soldiers who feared for their lives. Maybe some. But many were simply killed in a turkey shoot on the side streets. If you don’t believe that, I can respect your opinion and there’s no sense arguing because this has been rehashed so many times in so many threads, and it always ends in gridlock. I recommend you check out some of the remembrances of former CCTV commentator and friend of the CCP (now at least) Philip Cunningham. He is someone who, unlike Amnesty or HRW, staunchly defends the Party on many issues and who has no vested interest in making them look bad. To the contrary. I’ve had issues with him, but his writing on what happened in 1989 are indispensable. He describes in great detail what it was like to be among the students, many of whom were clueless as to what they were protesting for, about how peaceful the demonstrations were and how unnecessary the violence was.
Listening to the “other side” on this issue, I came to learn the shortcomings of the student leaders, the disorganization and infighting and general sense of squalor of the demonstrations. The students were not saints and the army were not sinners. In some parts of the city, there was terrible violence perpetrated against some PLA soldiers, mainly by striking workers, and the gruesome images of their charred and mutilated bodies are the main images today’s young Chinese, my friends when I lived there, have of June 4. So I’ve tried to expand my own perspective and not see it as good vs. evil, and I cringe when self-righteous ignoramuses make it sound that way. But with all my research and discussions and even my own “mini-survey” I remain more convinced than ever that the bloodshed around the square was unnecessary and unacceptably brutal. Most of the crowds were dispersing peacefully. That’s my bottom line.
Not sure if you read my interview with one of the demonstrators in Shanghai; it was a turning point for me. I really do want to learn all sides.
It seems we share the same aim & attitude but not the same opinions. I have not read the blog you mentioned – will try when have some time. It’s been a pleasure “talking” to you, after some hit & misses at the beginning. And I look forward to reading more of what you wrote and exchange ideas & information.
Right now however, I’m off to bed, getting ready for a busy month at work, hopefully not as chaotic as the last one, when I frequently worked from 8am till between10pm-1am on consecutive nights, including the Bank Holiday weekends! Sometimes I do wonder who does more hours of hard labour, the poor factory workers in Foxccon or myself :)
Good night.
I am astonished that Peking Duck is seen as some sort of authority on 1989 and the current state of China.
From public relations gig to political pundit, and all without the benefit of Chinese language ability or training in Chinese studies. Talk about forgetting what is important.
May we please distinguish between “analysis” (based on one’s education and training) and “opinion” (based on simply having wireless access and a willingness to pontificate)?
Finally, it is always amusing when Peking Duck quacks about free speech and what the Party should and should not do, when he is well-known for silencing dissident voices on his website or assaulting their contributions when they challenge his purported expertise.
Hi Ferg. I have never, ever, even once said I am an authority on China. Far from it. China is just an interest of mine, and I write about it based on what I’ve read and experienced. Please don’t take a word I say seriously. And as for censorship, no one has ever been banned on my site unless they say something truly offensive, and on a repeat basis even after being warned. Please see the comments in the current thread on my site about the TSM – the one where the readers say I am too nice about letting every troll have their say. I can’t please everyone, but considering the longevity of my site and the level of activity there, I think I’ve managed it well enough, at least to my own satisfaction, and that’s all that matters. A blog is not a public utility and whether one chooses to have comments or not, or to block nasty commenters or not, is the owner’s choice, and that is what free speech is all about. Anyone who wished to have a blog can do so and run it exactly as they choose. ESWN, for example, doesn’t allow any comments. Is that censorship? (I’ll help you: No.) If I didn’t know better, I’d say you have a chip on your shoulder and are using this thread to make a personal attack, but that’s okay. It’s pretty clear what you’re trying to do, and whether it makes me look bad or makes you look bad is in the eye of the reader. Have a nice day.
You’re right, it is hardly a China blog site, it is a China hate site. You say that you want to ‘block those nasty trolls’ yet you troll and allow others to troll by making personal attacks against others without limit. The latest blog about TS has gotten out of hand when you allow others to talk about my family and me as an American Citizen and you crossed the line. I am glad that others see what kind of ‘blog’ that you have been running.
Hey pug_ster,
You have been a frequent and valued contributor here. Do you mind taking the personal conflicts somewhere else? It would be nice to stay on the content of the post rather than bash other people and other blogs. There must be plenty of places where you can do that. Or even better you could start your own blog.
You comment so much and have strong opinions. It would be nice to have a home base for those opinions. If you start a blog, I promise to write a post to let people know about it! That would be a thank you for your contribution to CNReviews over the years.
Elliott,
You’re right. Perhaps I should not bring my personal grudge here. I think the problem is not that why ‘Chinese decided to forget this incident,’ rather how Americans remember this incident. From the kids book for grades 3-5 that I glanced a few months ago, that’s what irked me. It says:
In 1989 Tienanmen Square, a large plaza in the middle of Beijing, became the focal point of Chinese politics. Students were protesting the corruption of Communist officials. They were also calling for democracy and greater equality among Chinese people. After weeks of demonstrations, soldiers opened fire on the demonstrators. Hundreds perhaps even thousands, of demonstrators were killed. The incident, known as the Tienanmen Square Massacre, set of international protest, severely damaging China’s reputation in the West.
There’s a big picture with the guy and the tank with the caption One man blocks the way of tanks in the aftermath of the Tienanmen Square Massacre. He stopped their progress for half an hour.
Don’t get me wrong, this caption is mostly correct and that’s not the problem. The problem is this story is only a sliver of how and why this incident came to this faithful day. Any 3rd to 5th grader reading this would this get the gist of this slanted one side story. Unfortunately, this is how most Americans remember this incident without actually understanding it. That’s what I find so tragic.
Hey pug_ster,
I think your example of the American kid’s book (is it a textbook?) is a good point of what I was saying was “how fragile our conception of history is.” History necessitates editing, and editing necessitates a point of view. A truly neutral point of view is hard to maintain. It doesn’t surprise me that American textbooks have a slant, that Chinese textbooks have a slant, and that all of us have to break out to see where these biases might be. I find myself wanting to watch Al Jazeera about China, and non American press about the Middle East. Before I waded into the business of trying to reduce China-Western cross-cultural misconceptions I didn’t have this paranoia about my own biased point of view. Now i do. And I wish more people would be paranoid about it too. But honestly it takes too much work and mental energy to do this. Living in China is pretty tough. Surviving takes up all your energy. I don’t judge people for not wanting to break out of what is the most convenient (version of) “Truth”…
Fergus, I agree with richard that:
1. blog is not a public commons. It is a private space controlled by the owner of the blog, exercising his/her free speech rights according to the laws of the country where the blog is hosted. Commenters are accorded the privilege of commenting which can be closed at the discretion of the blogger. You are of course free to exercise your own free speech rights by starting your own blog.
2. Fergus, you do seem to be combative in your comments and sometimes seem to verge on personal attacks irrelevant to the subject of the post. I prefer a tone of civility. There are other blogs that embrace your style of writing, so by no means let me suggest that you can’t comment in other places.
Thanks Fergus.
people and culture awesome
governmetnt sucks
Heh. Let’s use this site to attack me. :-) Good to see you, pug. Yes, I run a hate site and I obviously hate China. Everyone is censored and it’s like hell on earth. Why bother going there then? The Peking Duck – worst blog ever. Except you keep coming back every day.
And just like you troll my site, you are now trolling this site, taking the conversation away from Elliott’s topic and turning it into a personal attack. But I’m the hater, of course, never you. I’m truly flattered by all this attention. :-)
@richard, funny, I actually started the post disagreeing with your opinion and now find myself having to defend your right to promote it and defend it without distracting personal attacks.
I suppose I will leave this topic to Fools Mountain, Peking Duck, Found in China, china/divide, and the other “contested” territory where the Red Guards and the Rednecks contend.
Elliott, I appreciate it. And you and I don’t disagree that much on the topic of this post.
plus points for red neck = red guard … :-)
the disease of fundamentalism, it is global
So Richard, you’ve managed the blog to your own satisfaction and that’s all that matters? That’s quite a service to the blogging community then.
Your response, I am sorry to see, is equally disingenuous. If you’re not an expert, then why argue with people who clearly know more than you do, given that you do not speak or read Chinese and have no background in China, save living there for a while? (I do like the way you duck the issue of linguistic capacity.) I especially like how you take on China scholars and say that you disagree with them. On the basis of what? That the New York Times didn’t call you and you feel slighted? Richard, you confuse the ability to manage a blog as somehow equivalent to a professional analysis of a country.
I am sorry that Elliot feels that animus towards a particular way of presenting China is somehow a personal attack on someone. If you want to see personal attacks, might I suggest you head over to Peking Duck and see how people who disagree with Richard are treated. The silly sarcasm you see on display here from him is just a small taste of the nastiness that pervades the site. People who agree with Richard are thanked and praised as people who “really understand China”, while those who do not agree and challenge his views are assaulted and called trolls. How that helps understand China is not clear, to say the least.
If all that you say here is true about your site, then label the blog for what it is: a hobby, run by an amateur. We’ve had far too much of the Foreign expat becoming Instant China expert in the blogosphere. It would be nice if it came to an end sooner instead of later. Richard shutting his blog down would be one good way to start, giving that the last thing the blog encourages is free speech–unless it is Richard’s.
Heh. So funny. I never said even once that I am an expert. I think what makes you so hostile is your annoyance that people think I’m an expert, and you think I’m some kind of phony. Well, you’re probably right, I’m not very bright, I only lived in Greater China for about 7 years, I only speak and read intermediate-level Chinese – but all these things are on my web site, if you care to explore. Oh, and let me repeat: I speak and read at the intermediate level, although I was basically self-taught, not getting interested in China until after I graduated college. What’s your hang-up about my Chinese?
Let me suggest that you look at your comment carefully. It’s literally brimming with hate. That’s okay. But what’s really driving this? Here I am; you know my name, my blog, my history. Who are you, taking cheap shots and lying about someone who’s never harmed you, and whose greatest sin is writing dumb blog posts about China? Obviously there’s something more to this story, because normal people who are confident with themselves and happy in life don’t do this sort of thing. Try looking into your past and identifying when this malice started germinating, and think about where you see inadequacies in yourself. Chances are you can pinpoint what’s behind this, and long-term therapy can help you overcome it. If you want to chat about this send me an email; the email address is on my site. I definitely think you could use a friend. :-)
“I find myself wanting to watch Al Jazeera about China, and non American press about the Middle East. ”
I agree with you there, Elliott.
Knowing how biased Western media has been in their reporting of China, I read around very widely before I start making a judgement on something I don’t have first hand knowledge of. And I keep an open-mind continuingly hoping to add more dimensions to my judgement as I continuing trying to get to know more about them.