Yeah, you liked that title, didn’t you?
Alright, here’s the deal: I’ve never been very fond of Chai Ling ever since I learned about her back at Cal. For those who aren’t familiar with her, she was one of the student leaders of the Tiananmen Square protests 20 years ago, elected as their “Supreme Commander” as it were. Most people who hate her, probably hate her because of her appearance on the award-winning documentary “The Gate of Heavenly Peace” where she arguably came across as a sniveling self-centered, power-hungry, emotional wreck quoted as secretly desiring bloodshed to advance her ends:
“The students kept asking, ‘What should we do next? What can we accomplish?’ I feel so sad, because how can I tell them that what we are actually hoping for is bloodshed, for the moment when the government has no choice but to brazenly butcher us. Only when the Square is awash with blood will the people of China open their eyes. Only then will they really be united. But how can I explain this to my fellow students? And what is truly sad is that some students, and famous well-connected people, are working hard to help the government, to prevent it from taking such measures. For the sake of their selfish interests and their private dealings they are trying to cause our movement to collapse and get us out of the Square before the government becomes so desperate that it takes action.”
Well, bloodshed happened.
While there’s no question that the government military is predominantly culpable for the use of deadly force, there remains significant controversy as to what degree student leaders like Chai Ling may have intentionally kept more people in harm’s way when the prospect of harm was arguably obvious. Dying for a good cause is noble and everything, but coming across as wishing harm upon your supporters is a little distasteful. What the students and workers wanted was laudable, but I’m not so keen about many of the things she did throughout the demonstrations leading up to the bloody end and thereafter.
She was kinda cute though.
So why am I writing about Chai Ling right now? Danwei kindly linked us to a June 7th article by Yvonne Abraham in the Boston Globe. In it, the writer blasts Chai Ling for using the American court system and frivolous lawsuits to squelch the makers of the aforementioned documentary, Carma Hinton and Richard Gordon. Actually, to be precise, Chai Ling is using her successful and wealthy software company, Jenzabar Inc. to sue the filmmakers’ far less financially endowed non-profit organization, Long Bow Films, with a case even the judge cautions them as unlikely to win. So far, Chai Ling has burned up over $70,000 of Long Bow’s assets in legal fees just for the latter to defend themselves against her persecution prosecution.
From the Boston Globe:
Jenzabar sued the filmmakers’ company, Long Bow Films, for defamation – just for directing readers to the articles Chai and her company say are offensive and inaccurate. A Suffolk Superior Court judge wisely threw the defamation charge out. The First Amendment guarantees the people’s right to say – and cite – even things you don’t like, after all.
But the case has dragged on because Jenzabar is also contending that just by using the company’s name as a tag on its website, Long Bow is guilty of trademark infringement – that somebody googling Jenzabar might land on the Long Bow site and get confused.
This issue was also reported by Evan Osnos in The New Yorker and Jane Macartney in the Times, both earlier in May.
“Tag” apparently refers to a meta tag, a list of keywords hidden in the HTML code of a webpage that is used to suggest to search engines how to index that webpage. If you’re not familiar with HTML or Search Engine Optimization, don’t worry, because in layman’s terms, Chai basically doesn’t want anyone searching for Jenzabar to accidentally wind up on The Long Bow Group’s webpage and, you know, see all this negative stuff about Chai Ling and Jenzabar.
Chai Ling maintains that “The Gate of Heavenly Peace” took her comments out of context or translated them incorrectly (the quote at the top of this post is the translation). Other student leaders have written to the documentary-makers and have established a website (blocked in China, naturally) defending her. It’s difficult not to suspect a conflict of interest when it comes between telling what happened (and what was said/meant) and ensuring that your fans in the West still think you were a great, peaceful, pro-democratic, anti-communist, anti-oppression leader of idealistic self-sacrificing students. Of course, that conflict of interest doesn’t necessarily mean they’re engaging in revisionism, it just means we’re reduced to a he-said she-said hearsay sort of thing, with none of us really being able to determine, with complete certainty, how “misquoted” she was.
Now that I’ve “defamed” Chai Ling, I do want to acknowledge the fact that she isn’t 100% evil. In fact, she’s done many a good thing, including making something of herself through education and hard work. In mini-Gates and mini-Buffet fashion, she’s even used the wealth she’s built up over the years to recently donate $1 million dollars (Dr. Evil reference here) as a humanitarian effort to support the advance of human rights and peaceful democracy in China. I’m all for that.
That said, I’m still not very fond of what she said before, how she’s behaved with regards to the Tiananmen Square demonstrations, and what she’s doing now.
What do you think? Is Chai Ling a nauseating hypocrite, now seeking to squelch others’ freedom of speech when it says something bad about herself? Or does she have a legal, lawful, or even moral (you know, “moral imperatives” and all that) case?
-
Tiananmen Square June 4th, 1989: Where were you? How old were you? What were you doing? How did you feel? What did you do afterward? What have you done since?
-
20 excerpts from Mark Anthony Jones’ illuminating essay discussing what happened and who to blame for the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests & eventual “massacre.”
-
Some people have the mistaken notion that their right to free speech extends to the comments they make on other people’s websites. Heh, these people are wrong.
June 4, 1989: Where Were You? What Were You Doing? 
20 Excerpts: “Sorting Fact From Fiction – Tiananmen Revisited” 
Your Freedom Of Speech Is NOT Guaranteed On The Internet 
I have reservations about her motives in 1989 based largely (and reading between the lines a bit) on Phil Cunningham’s recent serialisation of ‘Tiananmen Moon.’ And everything she’s done since then simply leaves me cold.
Self serving and manipulative; The title nails it.
Not a big fan of Ms. Chai (I can’t disagree with your title), but I think she has a good point.
Why would Long Bow include the word “Jenzabar” in their metatags if not to discredit her, or to at least call attention to her controversial background for people searching for Chai’s company? What does Jenzabar, a company that did not even exist in 1989, have to do with “Gate of Heavenly Peace”?
And why doesn’t Long Bow simply remove the metatag? What is to be gained — especially for an NGO that has precious little funds to defend itself, even if it is right?
Sometimes principle is way too expensive. True free speech is worth fighting to preserve, but I’m not sure metatags, especially those that aren’t integrally related to the subject at hand, qualify as free speech. I’m not a constitutional lawyer, so I could be wrong on that point.
Anyway, she said what she said back in ‘89, and unless she’s claiming the translation is inaccurate, few people will change their minds about her — whether she wins this lawsuit or not.
While I do find her statements back then quite appalling, I’m not that surprised by them. It is, after all, the kind of rhetoric she grew up with. It’s also what the political leaders were thinking; they were just too smart to say it on camera. I mean, if the student movement didn’t happen, she’s exactly the kind of people who would become the ruling class. And contrasted with the quite common view in China that the bloody crackdown was necessary to maintain order and eventually gain economic prosperity, her words really weren’t that surprising.
I find her recent attempts to curb free speech to be much more disagreeable than her statements in that interview — we were all young and stupid once.
Oddly enough, I find myself being a bit more generous and giving Chai Ling “young and romantic” than “young and stupid.” The notion of using tragedy to spur further action is romantic…even if romantically narcissistic. My reservation here, though, is that I felt she was someone who was keen on OTHERS dying for HER, as opposed to HER dying for HER cause.
The Western countries are complaining that China should have a frank discussion about the 6/4 event yet she want to censor others. That’s what I find ironic about it.
Countries like the US decided to open relations with China so that they can counterbalance the sino-Russia relations in 1971. All that investment to to put China in the UN council, trade, among other things so that they can be a puppet state of the US by US pushing ‘democracy’ into China. However all that ‘investment’ was a total failure and the US’s fight to win the hearts and minds of the Chinese citizens has ultimately failed also.
While Chai Ling is a questionable character, the intense focus on her actions is a meaningless distraction in the larger picture.
The massacre was planned and approved by the top CCP leaders, and carried out by PLA officers and troops. These are the real criminals, not some misguided, hot-headed student leader.
Maybe people should focus their rage on the real criminals.
People don’t like it when their “heroes” betray the very principles they were supposed to represent. It disappoints them. In the larger picture, people can be disappointed at one person and angry at another at the same time. There’s no need for false dichotomies, Gabe.
In fact, false dichotomies are what those “real criminals” so delight in forcing people to choose from, you know, like “support China = not criticizing the government OR criticize the government = helping foreign powers destabilize China!” Are you one of those “real criminals?”
You should not hide behind xenophobia, with nationalistic slogans about “foreigners destabilizing China”. The people who planned and carried out the massacres at Tienanmen square are criminals, and they walk free, as we speak right now. Is justice too much to ask for?…
Well, to define them as criminals is to say the Chinese Leaders to tell these soldiers to intentionally kill the protesters, that’s murder. However, the Chinese Leaders said themselves their intent is to not use violence if possible and one thing leader to another people died on both sides. That’s more like manslaughter. However, many western countries think otherwise and they are looking for ‘justice’ when they are actually looking for someone to blame.
Wow, pug_ster, communist apologist. You are just using the old-fashioned trick of blaming Westerners for China’s problems. Xenophobia never fails. A 2-cent party member towing the official party line. You are so brainwashed by the CCP propaganda that you cannot see that in Tienanmen square it was Chinese (communist) troops murdering Chinese people. The whole issue has nothing to do with Western countries. If anything, the Westerners helped the Chinese people, by saving and reporting footage of those events, which otherwise would have been destroyed and suppressed by the CCP. Dump your red book, and go read Confucius. Lighten up!
Your need for name calling to a person just because who I don’t agree with you shows your lack of maturity. While you think that I am ‘brainwashed’, maybe you are the person who don’t want a frank discussion about 6/4.
Gabe, I don’t think you understood my reply to you. I’m not one to hide behind xenophobia or use nationalistic slogans. I’m using such xenophobia and nationalistic slogans to show why I disagree with your comment. You were suggesting that people being bothered by Chai Ling are distracting themselves from the larger picture you felt they should instead focus on. I’m saying people can be upset with both Chai Ling and those responsible for the massacre at the same time. The reasons for being upset with either are different (and some the same). There’s no reason we should be forced to choose between one or the other.
Hey Kai Pan, I agree with you – we should not be forced to choose between such issues. It was just a misunderstanding.
Cool, no worries, Gabe. Rock on.
It is naive to label political leaders who decide to end public protest and unrest that threaten their hold on power as “murder”. Many historians would prefer “maintaining public order” as the only purpose of violence used by national armed forces. The degree of violence, or number of dead, is what seems to to change “brutal acts” into “massacre and murder of citizens”.
One thing is completely true. The CCP killed protesters in Beijing and ended similar protests in Shanghai with minimal brutality. So the story is more complex and the behavior of CCP leaders was not monolithic.
I think that both Chai Ling and the CCP leadership in Beijing are culpable in one way or the other. But the more enduring fact is that the past 20 years seem to have benefitted Chai Ling and the Chinese people who have experienced dramatic improvements in material well being and an improving ability to enjoy life on their own terms.
In civilized countries political leaders do not hold on to power through murder. Neither they send in tanks to squash a political movement. In case you have been sleeping throughout the last 50 years, only totalitarian regimes do what was done in Tienanmen square in 1989. And “maintaining public order” is merely the eternal excuse of totalitarians.
The CCP has still not come clean about what happened there, and they still suppress and censor everything about it.
The Chai Ling story is a sad sideshow. Stay focused on the real issue.
” …the past 20 years seem to have benefitted Chai Ling and the Chinese people who have experienced … an improving ability to enjoy life on their own terms.”
Not quite. Not the incarcerated; not the routinely harassed; not the dispossessed; not the silenced; and certainly not the victims who died.
No one knows how that “one million” will be used. She’s very very vague about it. Just a propaganda tool, many people have suspected.
How is this news? Gandhi and King, not to mention Samuel Adams (“The Boston Massacre”) used similar tactics. If you have an enemy who has a monopoly on violence, you need to use that to your advantage. If you can’t hit him, then make him hit you in as outrageous and shocking a manner possible.
There is a great book on the use of weakness as a military tactic by T.X. Hammes, called “The Sling and the Stone.” It focuses mostly on enemies of the US who have used those tactics, though some of the Tiananmen organizers were clearly hoping for the same path against the PRC
http://www.amazon.com/Sling-Stone-War-21st-Century/dp/0760320594
The difference is that people like Gandhi and King (and Mandela) were willing to make enough sacrifices themselves to make their demands credible. It’s pretty rich to say your minions should sacrifice themselves for the greater good while you look around for asylum from the US or UK, get one, come to the US and parlay your 15-min of fame to a new career in…tech startups. Dedication to democracy for your people indeed.
That’s the rub. She asked others to sacrifice their lives for ‘democracy’ in China, but when it comes down to it, she fled while their ‘underlings’ had sacrificed their lives. Her, Wang Dan, and other dissidents who left China got a good education and lived pretty good lives while the Chinese who remained there see these dissidents as traitors.
“…the Chinese who remained there see these dissidents as traitors.”
No. The CCP portrays them as traitors, which, let’s face it, is basically where you’re coming from. If they hadn’t left they would have been jailed, beaten, tortured, or worse. Leaving was their only choice.
Yes, they got themselves an education and a better way of life as a result, but with few exceptions (Chai Ling is one) they have NOT sought to hide their past and remain in open contempt of the Chinese government for their continued denials.
Not true, I heard from other blogs from protesters in 89 who had little respect for these protesters. You should go to FM to hear their comments…
Errr have little respect for these dissents I mean.
Um, Wang Dan never said anything about wanting bloodshed, etc. He certainly didn’t force anyone to go to the protests, etc. And he definitely suffered for his actions.
PS: Immediately after reading my last comment, I realized it comes across as snarky. I apologize for that. I enjoy this blog a lot!
Chai Ling is outlining 4GW, which is the only form of war that the US has lost (which is why I am interested in it). I have also argued in a manuscript that the early Christians used similar tactics
http://www.amazon.com/Sling-Stone-War-21st-Century/dp/0760320594
4GW, that’s a term that I never heard of. Thanks for that information. In the current events of things, I think that’s what US are trying to do in Iran with the reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi as the challenger in the Iranian elections. I doubt that the reformists have a very good chance to win the first place and now those same reformists are crying fowl because the results are not that they expected. The US interest is to only destabilize Iran and I think it will backfire.
“The US interest is to only destabilize Iran and I think it will backfire.”
I’ve just taken another look at the thread title and I’ve arrived at the conclusion that this comment is either nuanced beyond comprehension or very slightly tangental. I’m going with the latter.
In other words, you have nothing to say.
If only you could learn from my example.
Or there are Iranians who genuinely wanted reform and therefore tried to run for president in their country, and he didn’t win because the election was indeed rigged.
Not everything that happens in the world is an US plot.
You never know. I think there’s alot of red flags. Arrest of Roxana Saberi for expionage. Huge swings in poll numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009#Opinion_polls) Yes, there are Iranians who wanted reform and 32% (according to state results) who voted for Mousavi is a testament to that. It could be that minority 32% who is causing all these protests.
You act like protests are such a horrible and surprising occurrence. People protests when they don’t get what they want — it’s a normal part of any relatively free society; and they protest against the darnedest things sometimes, too, from the lack of pay raises to the preservation of a (rather ugly) pier.
And of course Iranians are crying fowl; they couldn’t very well cry pork. :p
LoL, I was waiting for this one.
isn’t she something like an outright egotist? Raisa Gorbachev once said taht youth is a mistake that is soon over, but with Chai Ling, the `error” obviously isn’t to do with naivete but her basic character and it plays on.
She reeks something of Madame white-boned devil Jiang Qing or Cixi. China does have some kind of tradition with megalomaniac women and thank heavens that the country did not fall into the hands of people like her and the oaf-ish Wuer, all under the stewardship of the avuncular Zhao Ziyang (well-intended as he was). What kind of world would we be living in now?
I don’t understand this tendency to portray the students as power grabbers who wanted to overthrow the government. From what I can see, all they wanted was reform so that there would be less corruption, less nepotism and more personal freedom — something that I assume we all want.
Maybe they wouldn’t even want power even if they’ve won. Maybe China’s leadership would be democratically elected if they’d won and someone else entirely would be in power. Who knows?
Um, Wang Dan never said anything about wanting bloodshed, etc. He certainly didn’t force anyone to go to the protests, etc. And he definitely suffered for his actions.
Agreed. A lot of innocent students were later punished, even though they had not done anything wrong.
Power-seekers usually don’t show naked ambition. It’s usually window-dressed as `changing things for the better, working for the greater glory of the country, the future of the company, blah,blah.’
The students were aligned with the forces, inside and outside China, seeking power. Better governance and quality of life were the issues, but these were confused with democracy. Democracy and these things do not go in hand automatically, as can be seen in many countries.
Yes, so many innocents were misled and gave up their lives. But for every Wang Dan and earnest student who sincerely believed that they were crusading for China’s future, there was a Deng or another gerontocrat who believed that theirs was the right way forward, and they have been proven right.
The chinese govt is accountable for the consequences of a tough but necessary decision. But the blood is also on the hands of people like Chai Ling who made inflammatory statements which misled others into a false sense of security abt what those old revolutionaries who had lived through China’s worst days could do. People like her are the ones who owe an apology to Deng Zilin’s son and others
It’s hard to make these kind of statements when it is impossible to test the other hypotheses. We can only acknowledge that whatever their decision, whatever choice was made, China certainly has improved and advanced since. However, we cannot necessarily say that China wouldn’t have had another decision, another choice, been made. We cannot be certain that the other options would have been worse — or better — for China.
What evidence is there to say that the students were aligned with any specific group? You present many statements as if they’re facts, but without any evidence.
By the last stages of the protests, nearly all of Beijing (i.e., up to millions of people) was supporting them. Was all of Beijing aligned with groups seeking power?
As to Chai Ling, I found her comments regarding bloodshed quite appalling, too, but she was just being stupid, like most young people are. She certainly didn’t have the power to deploy any troops or order them to open fire.
well, my opinions are my own, and i have that right to state them with the same conviction like anyone on both sides of this fence, eg, your statement about “millions in beijing”. i don’t know about millions in beijing, but it’s on record that many people smashed “little bottles” in protest against deng xiaoping’s role in the shootings.
Did they have any evidence either dat old man was the one who ordered the tanks in.
Chai Ling was stupid with her reckless statements just as the old men were stupid with their bloody decision. They had that stupidity in common. But since she portrayed herself as a leader equal to the grey panthers who ran China, why should her youth be an excuse for anything?
The point here isn’t about her stupidity. It’s about this cow’s hypocrisy, and she has it in spades. She swore to die by the sword, but left others to it. $1 million American to advance human rights in China? I can only say that it’s similar to Japan throwing aid like hush money as though it makes up for everything that happened in the war.
Look, no one is disputing that Chai Ling’s character should be called into question; I’m just saying that laying all the blame on her seems quite excessive. The main culprit should be the old men, not Chai Ling, because, again, she isn’t the one in charge of the Chinese military.
Is anyone actually laying all the blame on her? I think we were all just blaming her for what she can be blamed for.
I feel the same way she did/ does. I try to talk to friends and family about the coming tyranny here in the USA, and they look at me like I have 2 heads. I can tell them about the Brigade Homeland tour, NorthComm, the MIAC report, the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, Codex Ailimentarious, LRAD weapons used at the G-8 summit in Pittsburgh, documentation from the United Nations supporting depopulation in the third world through sterilization, abortion and wars….etc… and no matter what I tell them they look at me with a blank uncaring stare. The sheeple won’t wake up until martial law is declared,and blood is running in the streets.