An 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.
> 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.
Tian 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.
So 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?
Syria 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.
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.
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.
Sometimes extreme repression works, sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the conditions at the time and how the violence is applied. However it is never necessary. Take the USSR for example. During the coup that ousted Gorbachev there were mass public protests in Red Square blocking access to the Kremlin. The Junta ordered tank units under their control to drive straight through the crowds, but the tank commander refused. If he had followed his orders we'd be talking about Red Square in the same terms as Tiananmen Square.
Violent suppression and murder of peaceful protesters is simply not justifiable. Violent protesters, maybe. Riots against people and property, ok. Peaceful protesters, no. When you have an already violent situation sometimes countering the violence with violence is the only option. But instigating violence where there currently is none is IMHO clearly wrong.
Protests 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.
We 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.
We 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.
We 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.
You 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.
Except that the Tienanmen response might have prevented such a short term civil war. History has shown that China was on the right track, it's very hard to imagine they could have done any better since 1989.
What 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.
Is 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.
NB: 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.
There was nothing inevitable about Canadian independence at the time. For a counter example see Tibet, where independence is now pretty much impossible since the country has been packed with a majority of ethnic Chinese thanks to a determined policy of Sinification.
I think it is short-sighted to conclude which one (Chinese system/Western system, albeit exaggerated) is better at this point of time, especially considering the current political, environmental and economical circumstances and trends.
There'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.
Let'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..
One 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.
And 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.
Baizuo 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
