It claims (with some at least superficially convincing evidence, to be fair) that it isn’t accurate to call the event a massacre, and that deadly violence did not occur in the square but did occur elsewhere in Beijing. It tries to paint the deadly crackdown as justified because some of the protesters were violent toward the PLA. It also claims the protest was supported by the CIA and that the protesters had sympathies toward capitalist countries and the US because they erected a statue resembling the Statue of Liberty in the square.
Lady Liberty is a recognizable symbol for freedom and democracy around the world. It doesn’t necessarily mean pro-US or pro-capitalist. Seems an appropriate symbol for any protest to me.
The piece criticizes an excerpt of a description of the event from the U.S. State Department website, saying that it’s deliberately vague and implying this is nefariously meant to imply bad things happened whilst having plausible deniability. This is the silliest part of the piece. It couldn’t possibly be that the State Department is vague because there are conflicting accounts of the event which wasn’t well-documented and they don’t want to be inaccurate.
Wikipedia has this:
The protests were initiated by the death of former pro-reform Chinese Communist Party (CCP) general secretary Hu Yaobang in April 1989, amid the backdrop of rapid economic development and social change in post-Mao China. The movement’s goals reflected anxieties among the people and political elite about the nation’s future. Common grievances at the time included inflation, corruption, dismantling of the “iron rice bowl”, limited preparedness of graduates for the new economy, and restrictions on political participation. Although the protests were highly disorganised with varying goals, student protestors called for reforms including the rollback of the removal of iron rice bowl jobs, greater political accountability, constitutional due process, democracy, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. Workers’ protests were generally focused on economic issues, specifically inflation and Deng’s economic reforms, which weakened Mao-era guarantees such as lifetime employment in state-owned enterprises and associated workplace benefits. These groups united around anti-corruption demands, adjusting economic policies, and protecting social security. At the height of the protests on May 17, about one million people were assembled in the square.
“Iron rice bowl” is a Chinese term for an occupation with guaranteed job security, similar to life tenure. Traditionally, people considered to have such positions include military personnel, members of the civil service, as well as employees of various state-owned enterprises (through the mechanism of the work unit).
Okay, so, in other words, it was a protest against the liberalizing economic reforms and dismantling of part of the social safety net. So you won communism and then it’s being taken away. I’d be pissed too. Imagine if the government took away medicare, medicaid, and social security in the US. You better believe we’d be justifiably rioting. No foreign support needed.
So, the protesters were socialists. Aren’t lefties always advocating for overthrowing capitalism and replacing it with communism, violently if necessary? So we should do that, but when students try that in 1989 in China, the good guys were the government trying to stop them? Be consistent.
Also, the CIA was involved? But it was actually a pro-socialist protest. Hmm.
This is the linked piece on Tiananmen Square
It claims (with some at least superficially convincing evidence, to be fair) that it isn’t accurate to call the event a massacre, and that deadly violence did not occur in the square but did occur elsewhere in Beijing. It tries to paint the deadly crackdown as justified because some of the protesters were violent toward the PLA. It also claims the protest was supported by the CIA and that the protesters had sympathies toward capitalist countries and the US because they erected a statue resembling the Statue of Liberty in the square.
Lady Liberty is a recognizable symbol for freedom and democracy around the world. It doesn’t necessarily mean pro-US or pro-capitalist. Seems an appropriate symbol for any protest to me.
The piece criticizes an excerpt of a description of the event from the U.S. State Department website, saying that it’s deliberately vague and implying this is nefariously meant to imply bad things happened whilst having plausible deniability. This is the silliest part of the piece. It couldn’t possibly be that the State Department is vague because there are conflicting accounts of the event which wasn’t well-documented and they don’t want to be inaccurate.
Wikipedia has this:
Okay, so, in other words, it was a protest against the liberalizing economic reforms and dismantling of part of the social safety net. So you won communism and then it’s being taken away. I’d be pissed too. Imagine if the government took away medicare, medicaid, and social security in the US. You better believe we’d be justifiably rioting. No foreign support needed.
So, the protesters were socialists. Aren’t lefties always advocating for overthrowing capitalism and replacing it with communism, violently if necessary? So we should do that, but when students try that in 1989 in China, the good guys were the government trying to stop them? Be consistent.
Also, the CIA was involved? But it was actually a pro-socialist protest. Hmm.