16 ms·
Hidden Away for 28 Years, Tiananmen Protest Pictures See Light of Day
- blackbagboys 9y agoAn inspiring collection of photos, but I'd bet it attracts little interest outside a few select, irrelevant circles. One of the most heartbreaking thing about the massacre is not just that the mass murderers who ordered it were never held responsible but that today it barely even tarnishes their reputations, while the memory of their victims has been thoroughly suppressed.
- JabavuAdams 9y agoI'm going to take a kind of despicable position. We don't know what would have happened had the protests been allowed to continue. China is a vast country with mostly poor, uneducated people -- especially so in 1989. Look at what happened in Syria. Look at the Arab spring. Is it just to kill hundreds, to prevent the slaughter of hundreds of thousands? If the answer is no, never, I don't see how we can have states at all.
- ekianjo 9y agoTian an Men protests were peaceful and non-violent. Why do you need to suppress them using guns and tanks? That's the perfect opportunity to embrace progressive regime change/evolution instead of gunning people down.
- JabavuAdams 9y agoSo were the initial Syrian protests. The problem is, as a head of state, you're responsible for the whole populace. You don't know where it will end. It could literally end in the breakup and destruction of your country, never mind something as trivial as regime change. EDIT> Or are you saying that peaceful protest could be met with some perhaps token concessions. Then if the protesters get violent, the state is justified in using violence?
- ekianjo 9y agoWe know using violence against population is useless if the people are determined to stand for what they believe in. That's the whole story of decolonization across the world. Guns just give you time, but sooner or later people rise again. Look at India. They were gunned down many times, but they did not give up, and ultimately made their voices heard.
- simonh 9y agoSyria became mess not because there were peaceful protests, but because the extreme violence and oppression visited down by the government tore the country apart. You are holding the peaceful protesters responsible for the consequences of violent state repression. Perhaps you might want to rethink where the blame for that repression lies. Personally, I don't think it lies with the protesters. Imagine an alternate timeline in which the Syrian government opened up dialogue with the protesters and negotiated a new constitutional convention. There is no reason they could not have chosen to do that. But here you are advocating the kind of extreme response that in Tiananmen 'only' lead to decades of despotic rule but which in Syria culminated in nerve gas attacks in civilian areas.
- Udik 9y agoCurious how the extreme violence of the Chinese response in Tienanmen is responsible for the continuation of the government politics; while the same extreme response in Syria would be responsible for tearing apart the country. Let me express a doubt about this kind of explanation, that seems more fit to put the blame squarely on the bad guy rather than understanding what happened. When protests turn so easily into a civil war that tears a country apart, it probably means that there are lots of people ready with weapons and military training, and that the government's response maybe hasn't been hard enough to prevent it.
- justabystander 9y agoProtests usually follow some egregious government policy or action. Yes, there are protests that aren't very well organized, or lack a core concept to them. But those quickly fall apart with limited or no intervention. When they don't fall apart, it's an indication of something that's already wrong, rather than something that's about to go wrong. There were actually some leaders with sympathetic and liberal movements in the times that led up to (and during) the TS incident, but afterwards the Chinese government either forced them to toe the party line or removed them from power. Their unwillingness to allow peaceful dissent, their massive overreaction, and their blatant suppression of the facts and of the expressions of grief afterwards have certainly fixed the governmental direction for quite some time. Hardline censorship and oppression supporters got more power, while those opposed got purged or learned to stay quiet. The government policy was at a crossroads until then, but they doubled-down on a surveillance state. A government that straight up murders citizens during a peaceful protest and then refuses to let them talk about it for decades after has a huge effect. It's not just on the leaders in power, either. Even if they don't get the whole story, the Chinese populace is quite savvy about what can and can't be talked about. Most people will stand up for what they think is right when the risk is relatively small. TS reflected that, with academic elites being openly honest about their opinions about the state and future of the country. China was changing a lot and they thought there was finally a chance for a dialogue. But it was made quite clear that non-violent protest will be squashed and you will quite possibly be murdered or smeared for speaking a contrary opinion - even if it's out of patriotism. It drove all dissenters into hiding or out of the country, leaving an empty playground for military and political power seekers who had no problem with heavy-handed retaliation. > Curious how the extreme violence of the Chinese response in Tienanmen is responsible for the continuation of the government politics; while the same extreme response in Syria would be responsible for tearing apart the country. The thing in common is that, rather than listen to their citizens, the government chose suppression and murder. The citizen reactions in both cases are hugely different. But the source of the problem isn't different - an oppressive government. We don't shame people who back down when the alternative is death or civil war. It's an understandable choice. But we do shame people and governments who literally can't tolerate dissent without military might. Especially if they won't let you talk about it afterwards. Resorting to military might is a sign of political weakness, not strength.
- timwaagh 9y ago200 dead could bring 20 years of peace to China - Deng Xiaoping
- JabavuAdams 9y agoOne thing I'm not aware of is a state action that kills some citizens, where instead of suppressing the victim's stories, the state lauds them as heroes and martyrs. E.g. Okay, we violently suppressed this protest for the greater good (we claim), but let's not forget the victims. We'll erect monuments. It's on us now to remember them and to make the future worthy of their sacrifice. Would that incite more rebellion, or pacify a lot of the populace. Yeah, we did it. It was harsh. But it was necessary. You'll thank us in 20 years.
- k-mcgrady 9y agoWhat you're saying is that it is better for people to live under authoritarian governments of dictatorships than die fighting for their freedom. It's not a despicable position but it's incredibly short-sighted.
- JabavuAdams 9y agoThere's always a cost-benefit. None of us are truly free from all obligations, not all of them strictly voluntary. Friends, family, community, the state. We're constantly trading-off freedom vs. responsibility.
- ant6n 9y agoIs it? In the long term, it's better to be alive than to be dead. Some would prefer a peaceful, long term transition compared to quick, violent civil war -- which may result in a worse overall state. Wars destroy civilizations, sometimes for generations. This is something that Americans generally won't agree with, because their foundational myth is closely tied to the revolutionary war. Conveniently this war was a very long time ago, so one doesn't have to feel the personal consequences of it when using aphorisms like "you need to fight for your freedom". Btw, the Canadians eventually got their independence without a war.
- k-mcgrady 9y agoNB: I'm not American and I'm also very anti-war and anti-military in general. >> In the long term, it's better to be alive than to be dead. That's short term in my opinion. Long term could be hundreds of years. Generally these things don't happen in a generation. There is often some civil rights violations, followed be peaceful protesting which turns violent, followed by war, and then when it's in both sides interest, peace talks. As someone from a country effected in this way I can assure you 'you need to fight for your freedom' is not an aphorism. In some cases it's necessary - to a degree. Unfortunately once violence begins it's very difficult to stop again before much more damage than was ever necessary is done. However in the long term (hundreds of years potentially) it can put an end to an evil which may have only gained in strength and oppression otherwise.
- 9y ago
- gagege 9y agoAnd I'm going to point out that many poor and uneducated people throughout history have willingly given their lives so that future generations could have more freedom. The point is, it was their choice to put themselves in harm's way for their friends and families. It's inhumane to continuously turn a blind eye to those who crush civil disobedience.
- mahyarm 9y agoWe could apply the same logic to the entire Chinese communist revolution then. If it didn't happen then china might be Taiwan today vs. the polluted authoritarian land it is now. The famine which killed 15-45 million people and did a lot more damage on top of that probably would of never happened. The 'cultural revolution' wouldn't gut their intellectual class and set china back even further.
- ant6n 9y agoYou are applying the same logic correctly, favoring long term peaceful transitions over short term civil wars. Yours is not a juxtaposition, it's strengthening the argument.
- taobility 9y agoBaizuo don't care, just like what happened in Syria right now, they still want to help the rebellion to against the gov even ISIS is threaten the whole world
- bonaldi 9y ago> Is it just to kill hundreds, to prevent the slaughter of hundreds of thousands? A question like that can often be used to justify extreme exercise of state power -- witness raids on armed vigilante groups in the US -- but that's not quite the right question in this instance, which was a peaceful protest for democratic reform. As you say "we don't know what would have happened" here (and of course the Arab Spring couldn't have been a cautionary tale as it was decades in the future). So the question in this situation is really "Is it just to kill hundreds, to prevent a hypothetical bad outcome you can't possibly predict, can't prove and which even if it happened you could mitigate in other ways at that time?". To which the answer is palpably "no". In fact, it's a hell of a stretch to say oppressive dictatorships ever carry out actions like this "for the good of the many". They generally just carry them out to maintain their grip on power, which is an end in itself for them. But not one that justifies massacre, in the main.
- paradite 9y agoI believe downvotes should be reserved for comments that are not substantial, not comments you disagree with. I am disappointed to see this, but I am not surprised. It is hardly "legal" to take a different stand here on this particular issue.
- thriftwy 9y agoComments that suggest looking in alternate reality to justify violence aren't substantial. We can't know what happened to people in Dimension X, but we know that you aren't supposed to kill your citizens in our home dimension.
- JabavuAdams 9y agoWe are debating under which conditions it might be permissible to kill your own citizens. Reasonable people could have different answers to that question. "Never" is certainly one answer, and a principled one, but also one that is not implemented by any existing state that I know of.
- thriftwy 9y agoIt's always a failure when you can't find better solution than killing your citizen. Hence, let's stop discussing it as a success.
- cat199 9y agoLet's not forget the inconvenient counter fact that there are a whole lot more violent islamists wanting to install and spread their vision by force in that part of the world, and are happy to take any opportunity that presents itself to do so, than there are in china..
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- erikpukinskis 9y ago> Is it just to kill hundreds, to prevent the slaughter of hundreds of thousands? > If the answer is no, never, I don't see how we can have states at all. You're talking about an innocent 100 people right? To save an innocent 1000. Like some sort of hostage situation? I say no, it's not just. It's wrong to kill except in self defense. So how does that imply we can't have a state? Can't the state use the same principle? Kill only in self defense?
- pololee 9y agoSurprised that the article showed up on HackerNews
- wonderous 9y agoInteresting how even after all this time that no one knows who "Tank Man" was and within China, few even know he existed at all: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man
- racl101 9y agoChalk it up to the Mandela Effect? Brace for this ... there .... was ... no tank man. Dun! dun! duunnnnnn!!!
- nickbauman 9y agoWhat are you saying? I saw Tank Man live on TV as it was happening. If there really was no tank man, you have a lot of explaining to do.
- schoen 9y agoThe previous commenter was trying to make a joke about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory#Collective_false_memories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory#Collective_false_... (where lots of people seem to remember specific things, like Nelson Mandela dying decades ago, that didn't happen), but the joke might have fallen flat even if you got the reference.
- racl101 9y agosigh. Guess I'm not funny. This crowd is too damn serious.
- nickbauman 9y agoIt's not easy to convey that you're joking with just text regardless of the audience. Consider ~93% of the meaning you express is in non-verbal cues. Only 7% is in the actual text of what you write or say. http://www.nonverbalgroup.com/2011/08/how-much-of-communication-is-really-nonverbal http://www.nonverbalgroup.com/2011/08/how-much-of-communicat...
- fludlight 9y agoStudent protests really scare older Chinese because they remember the reign of terror that the Red Guard kids perpetuated during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s.
- Sacho 9y agoWouldn't the "Red Guard kids" in the 1960s and the "older Chinese people" at Tiananmen have a large overlap?
- jeltz 9y agoThen there is even more reason for them to know how scary the Red Guard was. The Red Guard had quite a bit of internal fighting.
- ZeroGravitas 9y agoThat would only mean they remember even better what those kids were capable of.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y agoYet another example of "nothing matters like success." Since 1989, China has gone on to have great success - both economic and diplomatic, and is on the verge (if not already achieved) super-power status. Because of that success, there is not much anybody can do about human rights abuses, so most people don't pay much attention to it.
- Finnucane 9y agoThe Chinese Communist Party watched what happened in the Soviet Union when Gorbachev tried to save his idea of socialism with 'perestroika'--more political freedom contributed to the USSR coming apart at the seams. So China took the opposite tack--more economic reforms, maintain tight political control. So the CP is still in power, even though the 'C' is diminished.
- nickbauman 9y agoA variation of Churchill's "History is written by the victors."
- droopyEyelids 9y agoAnd Churchill knew what he was talking about. https://crimesofbritain.com/2016/09/13/the-trial-of-winston-churchill/ https://crimesofbritain.com/2016/09/13/the-trial-of-winston-...
- ant6n 9y ago> Because of that success, there is not much anybody can do about human rights abuses, so most people don't pay much attention to it. China isn't the only country that has that issue.
- SurrealSoul 9y agoKind of a personal story, but my fiancé is from Beijing. She found out about Tiananmen square about a year ago. She only knew that she shouldn't ask about the Tiananmen incident growing up and that it was a bad thing that happened. She has been in the states for several years now and when she found out what really happened with our even blurry images and stories we have now it really changed her perspective on things. Even though its 28 years old, many of the younger generations don't know a thing about what happened, regardless if it's censored in their country or not. History should not be censored like this. You should not have to move out of country to know what your country has done. I am extremely grateful for the brave photographer preserving his images for the world.
- vtange 9y agoAnd the worst part about having to move out of country to find out things that were censored/hidden? You'll be inclined to believe foreign nations have a negative bias towards China. At least, that's China's (and Russia's) narrative.
- Cyph0n 9y agoIsn't that exactly the case in some instances? Every country and, by extension, news channel has its own agenda to push.
- vtange 9y agoYes, but in places where say news organizations are tightly controlled by the state, it is much easier to push a nationalistic, "my-country-can-do-no-wrong" agenda than in places where multiple parties push for agendas that help point out flaws that need to be mended in a country.
- emodendroket 9y agoOne thing doesn't prove or disprove the other really.
- wyuenho 9y ago
- racl101 9y agoStill, I gots to know what happened to tank dude. I gots to know.
- mtmail 9y ago"Numerous theories have sprung up as to the man's identity and current whereabouts." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man
- vtange 9y agoThere's inevitably going to be people trying to justify the tragedy here by suggesting America is no better, pointing to instances such as the Kent State Shootings (Vietnam War protest). For those people I'd like to point out that unlike China, America doesn't actively try to hide the negative sides of its history to the extent China does. I can read about the Kent State shootings all I want, along with the My Lai Massacre, the Trail of Tears, American involvement in Central America or the Middle East, etc.. It is in fact sad that China depends on the West to expose the darker sides of its past, and then claims Western negative bias whenever we do.
- likelynew 9y agoIts because the west cannot do this in current circumstances. I can make a bet that when China GDP per capita comes close to the developed nations, their censorship has to be seriously downgraded. And what do you say about Russia. Internet censorship is not all for hiding, there are many different ways to hide information, some of which the western countries are actively practicing, and I feel the situation is getting worse and not better over time.
- thablackbull 9y ago"I can make a bet that when China GDP per capita comes close to the developed nations". Exactly, people seem to forget that we're so comfortable here that we (I mean the majority) just couldn't care less. Every once in a while, we'll hear about some atrocity in a war we're in half way around the world, complain about it on Reddit and just forget about it the next day. We can sanction smaller countries about a list of human rights we created, but it's next to impossible for a smaller country to impose any sanctions on us thus making the US virtually unaccountable of anything. The gov does not have to fear the populace here but that is definitely not the case in a developing country.
- marnett 9y agoSo the west is superior because their citizens, although having access to damning documents of the actions of their nation, both domestic and abroad, choose not to care?
- throw2016 9y agoWithout wishing away the massacre or diminishing the kind of despotic environment that allows this to happen shouldn't the same kind of moral reprehension be expressed for the massive loss of life in the middle east from Libya, Iraq to Syria? Yet we rarely see this in the same context as these actions continue to be pursued aggressively with little resistance from citizens in the west. This seems to a very selective form of morality in practice more at ease judging others than examining our own actions. Tiananmen is past and beyond but the loss of life and destruction of entire countries that puts millions of lives in disarray in the middle east is here and now and continues unabated yet there is little pressure on our leaders to cease these actions from citizens. No western leader is tainted with the kind of moral reprehension directed at the Chinese inspite of far more serious crimes against humanity. There is a definite dissonance here.
- Angostura 9y agoThe same kind of moral reprehension absolutely were expressed during the period of the 'Arab Spring'
- qwertyegg 9y agoGlad to see many reasonable comments here. I have a vague memory of CCTV(official media, not your backyard CCTV) footage that depicting students and other people as mobs and killing soliders and burning the dead soldiers body. Over the years, I got more and more piece of information about what happened at the time. clearly Chinese government is still trying to cover up what they did, and many exiles is still making up fake stories. Nowadays in China people don't really care that much as you thought they would. The general consensus is that they are willing to forget about what happened and move on since it's full of opportunities right now and most people are more focused on getting a better life. Not saying Chinese government was right they knew what happened was shameful and still forbids open news covfefe or discussion about it. In a booming economy it's just hard to mass up enough momentum to really get into a discussion about what happens in 1989, people just don't care anymore.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago> they knew what happened was shameful Do they? Are pro-democrasy protests allowed today? Or would people be shot again?
- bluetwo 9y agoEnglish Wikipedia still calls it the "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" instead of the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" which is what pretty much everyone outside China calls it. Maybe someday we'll stop China from censoring Wikipedia.
- boomboomsubban 9y agoThe article is about the protests as a whole, they ended in the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" like the first paragraph of the article says.
- arthur2e5 9y agoIt may be a good idea to try blending some massacre (um, because WP:COMMONNAME, a.k.a. "everyone mentions the massacre"?) in and call it some "protest and massacre" though.
- Markoff 9y agonot sure what has this to do with hacking/IT, but Tiananmen square massacre is mislabeled event, more people died in other parts of Beijing than average in the square, so more appropriate name would be Beijing massacre or what Chinese use 6/4. People who died in square were pretty much suicidal since they were warned to leave and were told to leave even by their own protester leaders. It should be always mentioned that wife of current hard liner president Mao 2.0 She Gin Pimp was singing at that time to murderers in square. Overall not sure why are media so obsessed with this event were few thousand people died instead or mentioning millions who died thanks to glorified Mao. It's pretty good trade-off with DXP for most of the Chinese compared to trade-off gained with Mao.
- srcmap 9y agoI remember watched a fascinate behind the scene documentary on the down fall of Gorbachev by the old USSR conservative leadership which actually caused the rise of Yeltsin in Youtube recently. Likely in China during that period of time, the high level struggle for power also happened in BeiJing. In China the reformers of the time didn't win.
- clort 9y agoIts interesting that they used his english name, to protect his identity (and his family) but then go on to state his approximate age, that he runs restaurants, comes from Dalian, has an uncle in taiwan and migrated to the USA in 2012. Now then, I'm sure many people here could construct a database query to find the guy based on this information; the question is, does China have such a database? I know, they have a billion people but I hope some of this other information is obfuscated..
- greedo 9y agoYup. Mentioned his college, and posted a picture of him. It would be trivial for any intelligence agency to dox this guy from the information in the article.
- hohohmm 9y agoread some real opinions please: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-todays-young-adults-in-China-so-poorly-informed-about-the-Tiananmen-Square-massacre-despite-the-ability-to-use-VPN https://www.quora.com/Why-are-todays-young-adults-in-China-s...
- hohohmm 9y agoRead some real opinions please: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-todays-young-adults-in-China-so-poorly-informed-about-the-Tiananmen-Square-massacre-despite-the-ability-to-use-VPN https://www.quora.com/Why-are-todays-young-adults-in-China-s...
- abecedarius 9y agoI wouldn't assume any particular post is a 'real opinion'. The CCP employs many shills posting noise to domestic social media, so it wouldn't surprise me to see chaff on Quora as well.
- hohohmm 9y agoYou can write off anything with that, to be honest. It's like the nuclear weapon of arguments that ensures mutual destruction
- abecedarius 9y agoYeah, it sucks. But we do need to keep in mind now that social media psy-ops (or whatever the spooks are calling it) have become significant -- just as Amazon user reviews have gotten way more polluted, but without the direct personal feedback you get from buying the wrong item. There was a recent story about an academic study of the methods of in-China Party shills (I forget the link). By my skim they were more about distraction and noise than obvious pushing of the party line.
- perlpimp 9y agoreally wealth legitimized power of the communists and paved they way to insidious regime. had it been not for globalization china could've been the freest country in the world. alas we have this.
- pilom 9y agoI'm a 30 year old in the US. Unfortunately all I know is that there was a protest and some of the protesters got shot and there was a person standing in front of a tank. It's not like wikipedia tells accurate information about the event. Rather than alluding to what happened, can someone just spell out exactly what happened? Or give a non-propagandized link to what happened?
- justicezyx 9y agoThe rich and powerful (note I did not separate government & individuals, increasing these 2 groups are merging together, and seriously, the censorship in this area is way better than things happen in the past) in China have to maintain a great public image. Even if a significant fraction of the population are fully aware of that being superficial, there are definitely larger fraction of people who does believe in the camouflage. Not that such people are ignorant, their life is hard enough to really have the spare time for these stuff. The reason such history is heavily censored, is precisely for this cause. Such thing will never be freely available, as long as the social structure and political system works in the same way.