People take it seriously because it is white noise. They could just have a person jumping up and down saying “Tinyman square” over and over again it would have exactly the same effect. It isn’t supposed to be informative, it’s supposed to affirm their previously held belief of “Chinabad.” It exists as a big list of things because each individual part of it doesn’t actually matter, the goal is to do a kind of “Gish Gallop” of information, to just list off a huge number of things all at once, when all each of these individual things is just another statement of “Chinabad” again and again. It’s almost like a mantra, being repeated so often as a form of meditation, to achieve true liberal enlightenment.
If you’re interested in further investigation, this is a quick but quite comprehensive overview of the events, from a journalist with credibility in western circles.
While I haven’t looked into the two others, on one of the people burnt, Liu Guogeng, it seems important details were excluded:
On the streets, a widely circulated alternative version of events was that Liu had shot four people with his AK47 and was lynched after he ran out of ammunition. In fact, the photos of him hanging from a bus had been framed in such a way as to exclude the slogans scrawled in the dirt on the side of the bus: “He killed four people! Murderer! The People Must Win! Pay Back the Blood Debt!”
From Louisa Lim - The People’s Republic of Amnesia, p. 17, just started reading this. It seems curious to me that the sources I have been given are really just repeating the justifications used by the state.
You also completely ignore how when troops were initially sent into stop the protests, the protestors blocked them for days, chatted with and fed, finally forcing the troops to return peacefully. It is the chinese state that began the violent supression of the protests afterwards.
And as I have commented elsewhere, random blogs and Reddit posts are useless sources to learn history from.
Footage from a documentary titled The Gate of Heavenly Peace shows an interview between Chai Ling (student leader in the Tianamen Square Incident) and reporter Philip Cunningham a week prior to the protest.
In the footage, Chai makes the following statements:
Chai Ling: All along I’ve kept it to myself, because being Chinese I felt I shouldn’t bad-mouth the Chinese. But I can’t help thinking sometimes – and I might as well say it – you, the Chinese, you are not worth my struggle! You are not worth my sacrifice! What we (the protestors) actually are hoping for is bloodshed, the moment when the government is ready to brazenly butcher the people.
Cunningham: "Are you going to stay in the Square yourself?
Chai Ling: “No.”
Cunningham: “Why?”
Chai Ling: "Because my situation is different. I want to live. Anyway, that’s how I feel about it. I don’t know if people will say I’m selfish. I believe that people have to continue the work I have started. A democracy movement can’t succeed with only one person. I hope you don’t report what I’ve just said for the time being, okay?"
The footage has been verified by third-party media specialists as genuine, and is readily available online.
Chai Ling, or the biggest hypocritical scumbag ever.
Ah yes a ‘widely circulated alternate version of events’, because everyone knows ccp bad xinnie the pooh subhuman orcs media always lies to us and le wholesome reddit gold award ‘rumors’ are the word of god.
Great points, we should disregard all eyewitness that don’t conform to our views. And how do you respond to the photographs? Accidental discrepancy, with the writings on why he was killed being lies by the protestors? I can share a book which contains the photographs.
“people’s republic of amnesia”. Another tired screed by some diaspora shitlib with no real primary sources. Tell me, do you think an AK47 only holds 4 bullets?
There’s multiple pictures showing people with makeshift firearms in anti-CCP sites showing pictures from the incident.
Here’s a fun quote from wikipedia:
“Meanwhile, protesters used student loudspeakers in various university campuses in Beijing to call for students and citizens to arm themselves and assemble at intersections and the Square.[68]”
Him having killed 4 people doesnt mean he only had 4 bullets. I dont think that needs explaning :P
Its not true she had no primary sources. If you’d tried looking at the book you’d see it combines interviews of eyewitnesses with secondary sources. Eyewitnesses like a soldier who was at Tiananmen (who gives inconvenient details like protestors throwing bricks, glass bottles and injuring soldiers. And recounting how many were injured after clearing the square), general wu qinxian who refused to have his troops forcefully stop the protests, etc.
I still haven’t looked into the students during when force began to be used, will later.
Him having killed 4 people doesnt mean he only had 4 bullets. I dont think that needs explaning :P
I guess the topic Chinese people being killed is such an unserious matter to you that you think “:P” is an appropriate thing to use. Going mask off a little too early huh?
interviews of eyewitnesses with secondary sources.
Translation: “anonymous” sources that totally aren’t made up and more bullshit with no real sources. The only named source you have is some guy who was in a hospital the whole time.
No the “:P” was for how I found your conclusion to be silly. Isnt it silly you didnt consider warning shots, missed shots, people shot non-lethally, not to mention people being shot multiple times? So dont get ahead of yourself.
I dont know how to express my frustration of you just making stuff up about the source and leaving it to me to correct things. If you really want to criticize the book, takes a minute to download it and verify things.
No they arent anonymous, and those are two of many. The first person was just a random soldier-turned-artist whos name I excluded because I couldnt remember. I havent read the chapter on the general, but why assume he was interviewed on the events at Tianamen and not to have him recount events of before he was removed from his post?
While I think a blog post by a political party is pretty much useless as a source, I’ve stumbled on other reliable stuff while trying to verify it and they go against what I believed, so thanks for that. It seems the violence wasn’t in the square itself but towards it and nearby.
People take it seriously because it is white noise. They could just have a person jumping up and down saying “Tinyman square” over and over again it would have exactly the same effect. It isn’t supposed to be informative, it’s supposed to affirm their previously held belief of “Chinabad.” It exists as a big list of things because each individual part of it doesn’t actually matter, the goal is to do a kind of “Gish Gallop” of information, to just list off a huge number of things all at once, when all each of these individual things is just another statement of “Chinabad” again and again. It’s almost like a mantra, being repeated so often as a form of meditation, to achieve true liberal enlightenment.
How can pointing out violent supression and the killing of peaceful demonstrators possibly not be informative?
It’s informative in the way a fantasy novel is informative.
Useful comment for a circlejerk but not really for someone who doesn’t hold your worldview.
If you’re interested in further investigation, this is a quick but quite comprehensive overview of the events, from a journalist with credibility in western circles.
https://www.fridayeveryday.com/how-psy-ops-warriors-fooled-me-about-tiananmen-square-a-warning/
It’s not peaceful when PLAs were burnt/killed.
https://archive.ph/CGlJ3
While I haven’t looked into the two others, on one of the people burnt, Liu Guogeng, it seems important details were excluded:
From Louisa Lim - The People’s Republic of Amnesia, p. 17, just started reading this. It seems curious to me that the sources I have been given are really just repeating the justifications used by the state.
You also completely ignore how when troops were initially sent into stop the protests, the protestors blocked them for days, chatted with and fed, finally forcing the troops to return peacefully. It is the chinese state that began the violent supression of the protests afterwards.
And as I have commented elsewhere, random blogs and Reddit posts are useless sources to learn history from.
Here’s the more formal source
https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/tiananmenreadinglist
Some more context:
Footage from a documentary titled The Gate of Heavenly Peace shows an interview between Chai Ling (student leader in the Tianamen Square Incident) and reporter Philip Cunningham a week prior to the protest.
In the footage, Chai makes the following statements:
Chai Ling: All along I’ve kept it to myself, because being Chinese I felt I shouldn’t bad-mouth the Chinese. But I can’t help thinking sometimes – and I might as well say it – you, the Chinese, you are not worth my struggle! You are not worth my sacrifice! What we (the protestors) actually are hoping for is bloodshed, the moment when the government is ready to brazenly butcher the people.
Cunningham: "Are you going to stay in the Square yourself?
Chai Ling: “No.”
Cunningham: “Why?”
Chai Ling: "Because my situation is different. I want to live. Anyway, that’s how I feel about it. I don’t know if people will say I’m selfish. I believe that people have to continue the work I have started. A democracy movement can’t succeed with only one person. I hope you don’t report what I’ve just said for the time being, okay?"
The footage has been verified by third-party media specialists as genuine, and is readily available online.
Chai Ling, or the biggest hypocritical scumbag ever.
Ah yes a ‘widely circulated alternate version of events’, because everyone knows ccp bad xinnie the pooh subhuman orcs media always lies to us and le wholesome reddit gold award ‘rumors’ are the word of god.
Great points, we should disregard all eyewitness that don’t conform to our views. And how do you respond to the photographs? Accidental discrepancy, with the writings on why he was killed being lies by the protestors? I can share a book which contains the photographs.
give pictures. Can you read chinese?
No I don’t know chinese. I have only screenshotted the text because gore. It is from Michael Berry - A history of pain p.302, it’s on library genesis.
It says “killers” “four people” “return blood debt” “people must win”
There is no context whatsoever here. Do you even know that the “protests” were in favor of Deng against the other candidate?
“people’s republic of amnesia”. Another tired screed by some diaspora shitlib with no real primary sources. Tell me, do you think an AK47 only holds 4 bullets?
There’s multiple pictures showing people with makeshift firearms in anti-CCP sites showing pictures from the incident.
Here’s a fun quote from wikipedia:
“Meanwhile, protesters used student loudspeakers in various university campuses in Beijing to call for students and citizens to arm themselves and assemble at intersections and the Square.[68]”
Real peaceful.
Him having killed 4 people doesnt mean he only had 4 bullets. I dont think that needs explaning :P
Its not true she had no primary sources. If you’d tried looking at the book you’d see it combines interviews of eyewitnesses with secondary sources. Eyewitnesses like a soldier who was at Tiananmen (who gives inconvenient details like protestors throwing bricks, glass bottles and injuring soldiers. And recounting how many were injured after clearing the square), general wu qinxian who refused to have his troops forcefully stop the protests, etc.
I still haven’t looked into the students during when force began to be used, will later.
I guess the topic Chinese people being killed is such an unserious matter to you that you think “:P” is an appropriate thing to use. Going mask off a little too early huh?
Translation: “anonymous” sources that totally aren’t made up and more bullshit with no real sources. The only named source you have is some guy who was in a hospital the whole time.
No the “:P” was for how I found your conclusion to be silly. Isnt it silly you didnt consider warning shots, missed shots, people shot non-lethally, not to mention people being shot multiple times? So dont get ahead of yourself.
I dont know how to express my frustration of you just making stuff up about the source and leaving it to me to correct things. If you really want to criticize the book, takes a minute to download it and verify things.
No they arent anonymous, and those are two of many. The first person was just a random soldier-turned-artist whos name I excluded because I couldnt remember. I havent read the chapter on the general, but why assume he was interviewed on the events at Tianamen and not to have him recount events of before he was removed from his post?
https://www.liberationnews.org/tiananmen-the-massacre-that-wasnt-2/
Because that never happened.
While I think a blog post by a political party is pretty much useless as a source, I’ve stumbled on other reliable stuff while trying to verify it and they go against what I believed, so thanks for that. It seems the violence wasn’t in the square itself but towards it and nearby.
I find it difficult to claim something as utterly useless as a source whenever it is well-sourced itself.
I appreciate you reading it, regardless.
I said that because I can question if for some of the argumentsnts its building, if it is presenting the whole picture with the sources it has chosen.
Understood.
deleted by creator