643
...
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
643 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13447 readers
832 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
What do you think happened exactly?
https://www.liberationnews.org/tiananmen-the-massacre-that-wasnt-2/
Edit: the other source I was looking for
https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananmen.php
The thing to get is that there was no massacre on the square, and in fact there's no verifiable evidence that anybody died there at all that day. Many people did die elsewhere, in street clashes with soldiers, after demonstrators killed and burned a few of them.
I would like to note also that bringing up events like Tiananmen Square, especially heavily propagandized and warped versions of them, without an understanding of the complex political context which led up to them, is not a gotcha, it's just ignorant. Not saying you're doing that or that you would do that, but it's something others do frequently when they invoke it round here.
With no actual evidence, it just seems like China's word against the US's. Neither are sources I trust, and both have motives to lie. I'm just going to assume nothing.
I said there was no evidence that a massacre took place in Tiananmen Square. What actually took place there is well evidenced by eyewitness testimony, a fair bit of which is contained in the two sources I linked.
Edit: I also take issue with the assertion that both the US and China are equally untrustworthy, particularly when the Chinese government freely admits that violent clashes between civilians and PLA personnel took place that day, something they would certainly have incentive to lie about if they were as untrustworthy as all that.
I recall seeing eyewitness testimony supporting both sides. Although, its possible the testimonies I saw were about the clashes that China admits to, and were simply framed as being about a massacre. They didn't seem very specific or definitive.
Even though the Chinese government admits to those violent clashes, its still very plausible they would lie about a massacre. Its much easier to justify that than it would be an actual massacre, especially when the civilians act violently. Its also possible that admitting some aspect of it would benefit them more than complete denial.
You'd have a point there, if there wasn't ample photographic evidence which also suggests that no concerted massacre took place, in the square or elsewhere. All available photographic evidence that I've seen supports the Chinese government's version of events: scattered street clashes which unfortunately featured some quite heavy duty violence, but no mass formation of tanks coming in and deliberately schwacking everybody in sight.
You make convincing arguments, and I'm sure you are correct to some degree. I do not believe that the dramatized events suggested by the west are accurate. But, I still think it was a disgusting waste of life that could potentially be described as a massacre.
It wasn't nice, to be sure. The workers' protests which happened concurrently with the events of Tiananmen Square were reportedly the source of much of the violence, and it got properly nasty at times. The two events are often conflated though, and I felt it important to draw that distinction. Anyhow, I appreciate your open-mindedness.
Reactions like yours are why I still bother. All I ever want is for people to look at popular historical and political narratives critically. I apologize if I came off as hostile at all, we get a lot of calumny coming our way, as you might imagine.
If you want to find it more, I often recommend the documentary "the gate of heavenly Peace" which you can find on YouTube. If you want to understand a bit of it's perspective before watching check the reception/controversy section on its Wikipedia page