Let's see...
I am curious. Has there ever been a wide-scale student protest movement that WASN'T unequivocally vindicated by history?
Closest I can come with is nuclear disarmament. Not because I think they were on the wrong side of it, but I think it's far less clear cut and there's a credible argument that MAD has worked.
The Young Turk movement started with medical students.
There were quite a few pro-segregation protests when schools were desegregated.
There's also a lot of cases where students with real grievances and positive intentions are coopted; most of the students protesting in the early 90s in eastern europe didn't intend to do a color revolution and have their countries stripped for parts.
Thank you for bringing those up. However, unless I'm misunderstanding them, the only one of those where the protesters were in the wrong were the pro-segregation protests, correct? But weren't those protests by-and-large made up of parents? (Perhaps along with some of their children doing what they were told?) Not exactly the "rebellious youth sticking it to the man" we generally mean by the words student protest.
weren’t those protests by-and-large made up of parents?
Yes and no, a number of universities had pro-segregation actions by students including protests
History is always more complicated and nuanced than any narrative would lead you to believe.
Tiananmen got deleted.
Never knew until I immigrated to the US. And even then, its merely a brief mention on it and calls it "communism" (its not lol) and then the teachers proclaim its why "communism" is bad, USA constitution rule of law blah blah.
Look how good the constitution is, its being ripped apart right now.
Sure, the western world knows it happened, but its only a few shitposters on the internet cares about it. If you go on the street and ask the average westerner, they'd have no clue on what you're talking about.
A few posts on reddit shitposting on June 4 is not exactly being "Vindicated".
The CCP won, they erased history.
The USA is now following the same path.
Autocrats of the world have won.
They are winning.* It's not over yet.
It's possible English isn't your first language? No worries.
The word "vindicated" doesn't mean "won in the end," it means "they were right." As in, justified in their demands, on the right side of history. Even of the protests I listed in my first comment, half of them didn't actually win in the end (Vietnam, Occupy, Gaza, and arguably more).
From Wikipedia:
...(the Seven Demands) for the government:
- Affirm Hu Yaobang's views on democracy and freedom as correct.
- Admit that the campaigns against spiritual pollution and bourgeois liberalisation had been wrong.
- Publish information on the income of state leaders and their family members.
- Allow privately run newspapers and stop press censorship.
- Increase funding for education and raise intellectuals' pay.
- End restrictions on demonstrations in Beijing.
- Provide objective coverage of students in official media.[84][83]
I hope that you'd agree that the students were in the right, and that the oppressive CCP was in the wrong?
In Mainland China, most people don't know about Tiananmen, the older people who heard about it didn't know much unless they were in Beijing, my parents (in Guangdong province at the time) just think its some kids "causing trouble".
Most of the liberalizations goals failed, there is no free press. China is a State-Capitalist dictatorship.
Fact is, even in the west we don't know much. The historical record has holes. We know of the protests. We know the military went in and nobody came out, but I'm not sure we really know what happened.
At least... I don't.
We know the military went in and nobody came out
Well, maybe not "nobody"
wasn't the Red Guard also a student movement? it didn't get deleted, but it's definitely not looked back upon fondly. tbf most of what I know of it comes from Three Body Problem though, so I could be wrong.
there's also the Red Army Faction (Baader-Meinhoff gang) in Germany during the '70s which killed some people.
If they won they wouldn't still be trying to exert power. It's not over until they stop.
Weren't they revoking degrees now for protestors? Anyone who considers Columbia a real school at this point is incurable.
Haven’t seen that, just the green card of one of the organizers.
Given enough time, we were always going to have right wing authoritarians back in power.
But call me an idealist, I didn't think it would be actual Nazi sympathizers. Thought the brand was appropriately tarnished what with the Holocaust.
The US always had right wing authoritarians in power. They just prefered to slaughter people abroad.
Cherry picking history is what US excels at. So, they're always the good guys. Always…
There'll probably be some footnotes about their heinous history just so they can point and say they're not hiding anything. But the way they control almost all major social media companies and mainstream media. They get to play god with what sticks and what doesn't.
Thought the brand was appropriately tarnished what with the Holocaust.
I wish I had the faith in humanity you have
Didn’t the USA join a war against some Nazis?
Not unprovoked and not for 5 more years. Germany declared war on the US. Until Pearl Harbor, the US was quite neutral.
Edit: correct 4 to 5
They were about as “neutral” as they were in the Ukraine conflict under Biden.
They were selling loads of weapons at discount prices and supporting the allies in many ways.
You’re right though that the US public was generally against joining the war, and the US as a whole, tended to be quite isolationist until Pearl Harbour.
US was selling stuff to EVERYONE, including the Nazis
They were selling weapons to both sides. GM controlled Opel until the 1940s, they built a lot of the nazi war machine (using forced labor), the Ford-Werke factory in Germany produced V2 rocket turbines among other parts, and US strategic bombers were specifically told to avoid bombing it because it was owned by an american, Exxon and Dow licensed patents for synthetic rubber and other war materials Germany lacked, Chase provided loans necessary for the rearmament, IBM sold the nazis the computers they used to carry out the holocaust.
The capitalist class looked at fascism as the savior of capitalism; they'd been terrified of a revolution in Germany and Hitler had just shown them an alternative. There's a reason he was Time's man of the year in 1938.
Adolf Hilter was Time's Person of the Year in 1938. Joseph Stalin was 1939.
Source: https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2019712,00.html
Good catch, I have edited it accordingly. Real "giving the nobel peace prize to Henry Kissinger and the guys he is currently dropping chemical weapons on" vibes.
Also: Holy shit, Chiang Kai-Shek is there for 1937.
I wish they'd put the articles behind those covers on their site, rather than just simple biographies. I'd like to read how people like Hitler and Stalin were perceived in the run up to WW2. Stalin in 39 is particularly interesting because that's just after Molotov-Ribbentrop has been signed and WW2 has started with the Russian allied to the Germans.
The USSR never allied with the Germans, it was a non-aggression pact, made after the USSR failed to get Britain, France, or Poland to support them in invading Germany in response to Czechoslovakia. Instead Britain, France, and Poland signed the Munich Agreement, dividing Czechoslovakia between Germany and Poland.
To be clear, even after the invasion of Poland in 1940, the western powers intended to support Germany against the USSR, Britain even tried to send troops to support Germany's ally, Finland in the winter war, after the invasion of Poland, and was only prevented when it ended too quickly.
Mmmmm. I think I disagree.
Germany and the Soviets had agreed a boundary between the lands they both wanted to conquer. The deal was that the Soviets would take eastern Europe and Germany the west. Hence both countries invading Poland in 1939. Non-aggression is one way of putting it. Dividing Europe between them is another. Both aggressors against Europe.
And then Finland. The Winter War was a defensive war against the USSR and didn't involve Germany. They then exploited it when Operation Barbarossa commenced and continued pushing the soviets back. Finally, once that was done, they joined the fight against the Germans. To say they were allied with the Germany just because the both were engaged with fighting the USSR at the same time is wrong.
Germany and the Soviets had agreed a boundary between the lands they both wanted to conquer
And France and Britain agreed to boundaries in Czechoslovakia. You wouldn't call the Munich Agreement an alliance though.
They then exploited it when Operation Barbarossa commenced and continued pushing the soviets back. Finally, once that was done
Except the USSR ended up with the territory they had demanded at the start of the winter war, in response to Finland aligning with Nazi Germany. Finland's willingness to switch sides was due to them seeing the writing on the wall.
Person of the year is not a honorific. It just means most important or influential.
excuse me i won person of the year and i'm taking it as an honorific
Time Magazine Person of the Year is for the most influential person of the year. Not the best, or most admirable. Merely the greatest agent of change.
The USA made a hell of a lot of money off weapons sold to the allies. It created the USA industrial farming system.
Yes, yes, every piece slowly falls into place. *Cue maniacal villain laughter
It's like they actually studied history, to try and replicate the desired results as identically as possible. Or they didn't, at all, and this is just 2+2=4 scenario but with history.
The more things change…
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
