Live data from Hacker News

Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

bbc.com

31–40 of 62 posts

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#31
I feel like China has learned from Perestroika and made a conscious choice not to go down that path, but instead focus on economic freedoms rather than political. To offer some perspective: the 90's were a dark time in Russia. The Soviet Union disintegrated, taking large chunks of deliberately decentralized economy with it, there was hunger, hyperinflation, deficit of basic goods (same shit you're seeing in Venezuela right now), and the poorer, older, less economically nimble part of society was disproportionately impacted.

This was, in large part, because people were given near total freedom (far more of it than you see in the US today) in one fell swoop, and _way_ before they knew what to do with it. Naturally, some people were much better than others at turning this to their advantage, opportunistically injecting themselves into the corridors of power, buying up previously state-owned factories for fractions of a penny on the dollar, swindling the common people out of whatever breadcrumbs the government threw to them during privatization.

This shit was allowed to run unabated for a decade or so, and ended up with Yeltsin hanging up his hat and apologizing on TV, before de-facto installing Putin as his successor. The people behind this were Siloviki: the powerful folks who run or otherwise control Russia's several security services.

In retrospect, given the amount of pain, death, and suffering inflicted on the general public, it could be that shooting a few hotheads early on would be an objectively better option. The country could then proceed to a much more controlled and measured liberalization, with law and order carefully enforced throughout, rather than a decade-long free-for-all (or rather "a few") that ensued in practice.

That's not to say that Tiananmen suppression was justified. I grew up in Russia, so I was a direct observer and participant of the events I describe above, so in the case of Russia I can tell you with a good degree of confidence that if the wild 90's weren't allowed to happen there to the extent that they did, Russia would be far better off.

Stuff like this also can't be judged by reading propaganda, foreign or domestic, so those who haven't been there at that time should refrain from commenting one way or the other. That'd be just regurgitating someone else's talking points: an entirely pointless exercise.

I'd love to hear from someone who lived in China at that time and for whom this is not something they've read about on the Internet.

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#33

It sounds like the US government ministers who defended the 1992 crackdown in Los Angeles at the Republican National Convention and elsewhere. The US army marched in to quell the upset, and dozens were killed. Although we do not hear much about that in the US other than praise of the army. Just endless rehashes of Beijing events before LA happened, in the middle of Trump's trade and South China sea war with China.

The 1992 Republican National Convention was in Houston and AFAIK no one died

I said Los Angeles, not Houston.

It was defended at the 1992 RNC as I said - https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/patrickbuchanan199...

In fact the Republicans have this speaker saying an almost word for word echo of what the Chinese minister said.

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#34
post #5

I wonder who asked the Tiananmen question to the minister from the audience in Singapore. That guy has some backbone, I like it. They should be challenged on the topic of their political repression more. And not just the typical American channels which Beijing finds easy to dismiss as western propaganda. It's a pretty simple equation. Why would any state have to spend so much explicit effort on making no one mention…

Not to worry, 30 years is still on the young side of a cover up.

At or around the 50 year mark, you'll start to see things loosen up (if 50 year-olds did the deeds, 50 years later they'd be 100), as most of the adults clenching their death grip on the yoke of popular discussion will start dying off. Once no one with skin in the game remains alive to defend the bad decisions, less effort will be invested in denial.

Kind of like the way bad science works. It takes a while for a graduating class to grow into their credentials and take a giant shit on the more hated principles that their predeccesors tortured them with.

That is, of course, unless blood relatives of the ones with blood on their hands are still floating around throughout the power structurers.

In authoritarian regimes, personnel churn is slower, and dynastic succession can prolong even craptacular totalitarianism like Juche.

With a singular leader, deposing the face of authority can unravel a movement like Baathism, with Saddam Hussein, but you have to take out the Udays and the Qusays too.

China is bigger though, and power is more distributed and has been handed off to descendents, so it's more durable than any simple dictatorship. A process of changing the guard will have to play out across several terms until the retired personnel actually die, and grandma and grandpa's "legacies" are looked back on with bored indifference.

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#35

I am trying to understand what it feels like to Chinese people. As Americans, is there any past government action we can't criticize? I am sure there is some example but I can't think of it. Is there something similar for us?

I think it’s actually quite simple. The Chinese fear the American government more than the Chinese government. Therefore they care more about the legitimacy of the Chinese government and are willing to elide whatever mistakes their own government may have made. That their government may or may not have told the truth about Tiananmen is immaterial.

Why do they fear the American government?

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#36
post #5

I wonder who asked the Tiananmen question to the minister from the audience in Singapore. That guy has some backbone, I like it. They should be challenged on the topic of their political repression more. And not just the typical American channels which Beijing finds easy to dismiss as western propaganda. It's a pretty simple equation. Why would any state have to spend so much explicit effort on making no one mention…

The question and answer are likely planned.

CCP wanted that answer out. It will reach its intended audience: upcoming generation of party leadership; young and affluent non-CCP Chinese; nationalist Chinese; law and order Chinese.

I think that substantial and important subset will be satisfied with the answer. The rest are busy chasing virtual butterflies glued to their "smart assistant" (a feature, not a bug) just like their counterparts over here.

And the fact of its being discussed rather diminishes that propaganda card.

> It's a pretty simple equation. Why would any state have to spend so much explicit effort on making no one mention it, if there was nothing really wrong with it?

> elephant in the room

You mean like two modern skyscraper crumbling into dust in a handful of seconds which one must not mention in respectable society unless repeating the "party line"?

Like those two elephants?

Should we discuss the official fact finding efforts for additional black humor, and then revisit the "universal obedience" phenomena?

> The near universal obedience seen among the population would seem very foreign to most people in the west. Which is in itself an interesting cultural question.

Laughable and racist. (See "conspiracy theory" for disambiguation.)

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#37
post #22

I'm reading this thread while in a hotel a block away from the square in China (not on VPN, because that has not been working due to political events). Of course the BBC article is blocked. The thirtieth anniversary of the event is tomorrow. Interesting that HN is not blocked.

Let's test it: is this blocked? https://outline.com/99a78v What about this (expires in 7 days, but does require an actual download. It is a FF screenshot of the BBC page): https://send.firefox.com/download/0fc126b73012ee50/#o_bILCxP... I'm curious, because if they analyze these links (or even this message) I figure it would be easy to identify.

Neither were blocked.

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#38
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's test it: is this blocked? https://outline.com/99a78v What about this (expires in 7 days, but does require an actual download. It is a FF screenshot of the BBC page): https://send.firefox.com/download/0fc126b73012ee50/#o_bILCxP... I'm curious, because if they analyze these links (or even this message) I figure it would be easy to identify.

Neither were blocked.

Well then it looks like you can use outline to read things that are being censored.

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1992 Republican National Convention was in Houston and AFAIK no one died

I said Los Angeles, not Houston. It was defended at the 1992 RNC as I said - https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/patrickbuchanan199... In fact the Republicans have this speaker saying an almost word for word echo of what the Chinese minister said.

The two replies are completely puzzled about what I mean by the US army marching into Los Angeles in 1992, with dozens dead in the wake.

It makes me think of people who are "shocked" that Chinese college students don't know about Beijing in 1989, and they say how the Chinese elite have suppressed events. But I talk about the US army marching into Los Angeles in 1992 and dozens dead in the wake, and it is a complete mystery to multiple people here, they have no idea what I'm talking about.

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#40
post #5

I wonder who asked the Tiananmen question to the minister from the audience in Singapore. That guy has some backbone, I like it. They should be challenged on the topic of their political repression more. And not just the typical American channels which Beijing finds easy to dismiss as western propaganda. It's a pretty simple equation. Why would any state have to spend so much explicit effort on making no one mention…

> And not just the typical American channels which Beijing finds easy to dismiss as western propaganda. [...] The near universal obedience seen among the population would seem very foreign to most people in the west.

You say that, but mainstream western media is very rarely really critical of the government and especially the core policies of the government (which are the same regardless of whose government it happens to be). Yeah, mainstream media will take some potshots (which is an improvement over China) but very rarely will there be an actual critique of establishment politics.

Almost no mainstream media was critical of the Iraq war and the lie that Saddam had WMDs. No mainstream media is critical of the currently 5 illegal wars (not approved by Congress thus being illegal under the US constitution, nor an act of defense thus being illegal under the Nuremberg Convention) being waged by the US. No mainstream media was critical of the Syrian gas attack (used as justification to bomb Syria with America's "majestic" weapons) which may have been false, given the recent leak of an internal OPCW document detailing evidence that the gas canisters could not have been dropped from a helicopter and the attempts to cover it up[1] -- which was so ignored by mainstream media that I can't even find an article mentioning it. No mainstream media is critical of US interventionism nor modern US imperialism. No mainstream media is critical of the current narrative being pushed by the government about Venezuela or Iran. And that's just the war narrative!

[1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/douma-syria-opcw-chemic...

Post reply on HN