Comments like this are uncouth and unproductive. I donāt appreciate being talked down to, and I will do my best to return the favour if you can do the same for me.
I should have been more specific that a āconversationā to me is a little different from the formal exercise of a ādebateā or what have you, and that formal exercise, especially when itās littered with tacit assumptions that are much easier to drop in than to unpack and refute, such as:
However I donāt think having an āintelligence agencyā with little to no oversight with a license to kill and abuse their own citizens results in the best end result for the citizenry
Itās just not very engaging to me, you know? But thatās fine, if anything youāll benefit from me not going on for too long because Iām excited by ideas Iām discussing, we can just have a simple exercise in looking at evidence and Iāll be more mindful of my tone. I apologize for letting myself come off so rudely.
That having been said:
If you do have such sources, I am open to changing my mind, although I do not think Twitter threads or Youtube videos should be seen as good sources, and are not likely to change my mind.
I donāt plan on using those sources, but I would like to point out that you either are expressing yourself poorly or have a mistaken idea here.
Either you mean to say that āSomeone on the internet saying āJust trust me broāā is not a good source
Or you are concerned with platforms being āacademicā in a way that is tied up in silly formalism.
[I was going to include for option one that āHaving the task of argument be exported to a video essay is kind of obnoxious,ā but on the other hand having it exported to a book is arguably much more obnoxious, so I think the main issue is sourcing]
Obviously I agree with the first version, but then itās good to talk about sourcing more plainly. In the second case, well, I think you drastically underestimate the pablum that gets published in academic journals. You can find people saying any old thing so long as itās a thesis that is friendly to the publisher or the publisherās audience. I did a research paper on Michael Parenti not too long ago and let me tell you, the āliteratureā attacking him in peer-reviewed journals is dog shit, plain and simple. Just the most insipid and unsubstantiated arguments youāve ever seen. There was one that could have been a good critique if the author had a limited enough scope for the length of what they were writing to not leave their thesis completely hanging, but that review was a shining city on a hill compared to the others.
But if you want something a little more relevant, Iāll mention that people do indeed lie in books, and there are multiple cottage industries dedicated to producing stories with no concern for if they are lies or not so long as they support a certain range of theses [example]. If we were talking about the DPRK (letās not), it would not be a good idea to crack open Yeonmi Parkās memoir and quote from it as believable witness testimony.
Anyway, back to the main subject:
In order to have an actual conversation, I believe having a common understanding of the facts is a premise, agreed?
Agreed
Firstly, the number of people who died has a 200-10 000 range.
Even the journo who said 10k recanted! His high-end estimate was like 3.5k or something, which is still way higher than others but way less than what he said before.
Well, whatever, that part isnāt important at the moment.
I keep finding tangents, but you generally also agree that the HRIC isnāt a great source and are just providing those links for convenience, right? Since whatever might be said of the authors you mention, the website doesnāt list so much as a witness of the killings on any of the four profiles. Mind you, several students did die (I think the lowest estimate is 30-something, along with ~200 other fatalities) and I am not contesting that these were real people who were killed by the PLA in that area at around that time (though June 3rd is listed for one and that seems early), merely that these accounts are not compelling for the argument that people died in the square. The US by this point is infamous for laundering its foreign policy goals through NGOs like the NED.
We also have this article citing both a Reuters reporter and a Chinese dissident who support that there was no death in the square. It should be noted that, if I am reading both accounts correctly, the reporter would have been in very close proximity to where one of the students you listed was said to have died (ābeneath the national flagā). While the image is full of pathos, it doesnāt seem to hold up. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something.
In any case, itās no wonder that monsters like Chai Ling, the student leader who infamously gave the interview before the fact about trying to drive her flock into gunfire, would later give sensational reports of slaughter when they themselves werenāt even present at the time said slaughter supposedly happened. I hope Youtube is acceptable when itās for archival footage of a documentary and a news broadcast. I hadnāt personally seen the clips after the first interview with Chai Ling until looking it up just now. Iāve gotta say, though I obviously am politically against him, Hou Dejian seems admirable.
Regarding the lynching [and let me correct myself again that it might have been an immolated corpse that was strung up by its neck, i.e. the hanging was not the cause of death, though burning an unarmed person to death sure qualifies by the informal definition of "lynching], I guess step one is to dig up those photos . . . You would not believe how annoying it is, but it makes sense that the photos would be constantly taken down.
[Massive CW for extreme violence and some nudity] Found it, scroll down to just shy of halfway and you will see the graphic images. I think even from the pictures alone, the timeline is self-evident, since civilians would not be left in such close proximity to corpses (or torched tanks) after the violence concluded. Itās plain that some āprotestorsā (a tiny number within the larger movement) committed murder and desecrated the corpses before the government retaliated. It was probably a slightly larger number who were involved in messing with the vehicles, since that appeals to a basic hooliganism (see the people still standing on top of one).
Iām less interested in tallying the specific death toll than the more definable and finite issues like āWere soldiers killed beforehand?ā and āDid anyone die in the square itself?ā Of course, those arenāt the only questions and we can do the tallying thing if you insist, but I wanted to start by focusing on the more clear-cut topics.
Regarding tone, it may just be because itās very difficult to convey over text (and I am just misinterpreting), but also that my short stint here has led me to believe that while I in theory share political views with socialists here, these so called ātankiesā are also very confrontational and polemic for no apparent reason (apparent to me at least). Said differences interest me though, so I am trying to grasp just what it all boils down to and what if anything I can learn from it.
if anything youāll benefit from me not going on for too long because Iām excited by ideas Iām discussing
Actually, I donāt really mind long winded tangents as long as they are interesting, funny or preferably both!
Either you mean to say that āSomeone on the internet saying āJust trust me broāā is not a good source
Pretty much this. ābroā science, lessons from the āschool of hard knocksā, insane 4 hr yt videos with absolutely no source references and Twitter threads with wild statements corroborated by screenshots from some obscure sourceā¦ I could go on but it seems you understand what I mean.
Even the journo who said 10k recanted!
Yes, 10k is inaccurate. At the same time though, you have the mayor of Beijing claiming 200, the Ministry of Public Security claiming 563, while hospital records show about 500 as a minimum baseline, so I guess as far as official sources go we canāt really trust them either. 2 600 seems like the best estimate based on what I have found, which is still a huge number if you ask me when compared to other protests of similar size in western countries, consider e.g. the frequently quite violent protests in Paris and how the police there doesnāt murder a few thousands just because the government doesnāt agree with the protests (apologies for the digression).
(you) agree that the HRIC isnāt a great source and are just providing those links for convenience, right?
Not familiar with HRIC, it was just the search results that came up and they seem to be based on the information provided by the first hand witnesses I mentioned.
While the image is full of pathos, it doesnāt seem to hold up. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something.
Itās quite possible that one person saw something another did not, or that they were not there at the same time. Just based on my experience in crowded places like concerts, having complete situational awareness is impossible, and I am sure that with just 5 deaths in a huge square filled with thousands of people at night time you would have a substantial number that did not see anything. Their deaths are still quite likely though, as there are multiple sources that back this up - see the ones I have referenced above if you have any doubt.
Itās also worth noting that the various armies called in acted quite differently from one another, since some were more or less local to the city and others were pulled from far away places, with no local attachments and with varying levels of sympathetic commanders - so itās quite possible that some groups of soldiers would have acted compassionately while others would have been more keen to shoot first and ask questions later. This is also supported by the fighting and killing between the different armies, and could (in part) explain the differences between the eye witness reports.
I hope Youtube is acceptable when itās for archival footage of a documentary and a news broadcast
Itās fine, I am not watching 3 hours of unsubstantiated claims but 6 minutes is alright.
Itās plain that some āprotestorsā (a tiny number within the larger movement) committed murder and desecrated the corpses before the government retaliated.
I donāt think itās that plain. As mentioned, you have several elements all killing each other at various points:
Violent elements among protestors
Elements of the PLA sympathetic to protestors
Elements of the PLA with a āstrong politicalā sense, loyal to the regime
Within that, you have soldiers being suddenly surrounded and encouraged by protestors to rise up against their perceived tyrants, you have civilians witnessing the murder of their friends and you have soldiers fearing for their lives - soldiers I might add that might have had no freaking idea what is happening because up until that point they were happily living their lives as illiterate farmers and now suddenly thereās chaos and their commander is telling them to defend themselves and now everyone without a uniform starts looking like a threat.
So you see, I donāt think I can attribute a lot of confidence to reports claiming that the protestors started lynching soldiers which in turn made them open fire. I think itāa an order of magnitude more likely that things got out of hand after the first phase of the dispersal, people were then hurt and things escalated from there up until the point where you have civilians stringing up burnt corpses in the street, soldiers summarily executing protestors and tanks running over people.
Regardless, a command was centrally issued and the consequence was a slaughter. Responsibility for the murders falls on the government of the PRC in my opinion, mens rea and actus reus.
Regarding tone, it may just be because itās very difficult to convey over text (and I am just misinterpreting), but also that my short stint here has led me to believe that while I in theory share political views with socialists here, these so called ātankiesā are also very confrontational and polemic for no apparent reason (apparent to me at least). Said differences interest me though, so I am trying to grasp just what it all boils down to and what if anything I can learn from it.
Hereās a place where perhaps I can be helpful, since I feel like I wonāt be much use elsewhere. Pay close attention to the way that the anticommunists here talk about their opposition and imagine being the subject of that talk by a substantial portion of this userbase and basically the entire mainstream of other websites like Reddit (of which it borders on being a carbon copy). Itās easy to see Marxists referred to as āred fascists,ā āgenocide deniers,ā sometimes flat-out āNazis,ā along with being accused of being a āshill,ā a ābot,ā a ātroll,ā a foreign agent (you can see people complaining about āhow many Russiansā are on this site, but they donāt actually have reason to believe many Russians are here). All of that sits behind the sneering accusation of ātankie.ā
Now, itās kind of whatever to me when itās online ā and this sort of āanti-tankieā framework almost always is ā but some people take that sort of thing as a serious insult because equating someone to Nazis is a pretty serious insult. All this while the people making the accusation bandy about things like the 10k figure we discussed, which is just ridiculous but you are treated as a holocaust denier for trying to interrogate its dogma. Even you, when trying to be amicable with me, still use terms like āregime,ā which essentially means āgovernment I donāt likeā with the way it gets used.
So, I donāt encourage people to get needlessly combative, but I can slip into it myself and I struggle to fault others who do so as well (though I encourage them to take things dispassionately!). I hope that that explains a little bit of it, because personal insult just saturates the environment in some places.
Regarding the rest of this, let me know if the organization of information is too hectic and Iāll rewrite it.
Itās quite possible that one person saw something another did not, or that they were not there at the same time. Just based on my experience in crowded places like concerts, having complete situational awareness is impossible, and I am sure that with just 5 deaths in a huge square filled with thousands of people at night time you would have a substantial number that did not see anything. Their deaths are still quite likely though, as there are multiple sources that back this up - see the ones I have referenced above if you have any doubt.
I do not doubt that these are real people who are dead, let me repeat that again. That said, these 5 are singled out because they supposedly died in the square.
Iāve presented you with witness testimony from multiple sources saying that people were not, in fact, killed in the square and the crowd was dispersed pretty uneventfully (though I think to actually reach the square in the first place people were beat back with batons to make way). Most of the people were already gone before the dispersal because most of the protestors listened to the warnings and the deadline.
Quoting the photo article:
āOnce agreement was reached for the students to withdraw,ā said Lilley in his cable, āthe students left the square through the southeast corner. Essentially everyone, including Gallo, left. The few that attempted to remain behind were beaten and driven to join the end of the departing procession.ā
The square was mostly cleared peacefully and those who refused were beaten with batons to drive them out. They werenāt just wantonly shot.
Thereās no reason that the student leader who said he stayed until 6:30 AM wouldnāt have seen this victim, since the victim was shot āearly in the morning on June 4thā and the leader witnessed the square being cleared, just as many others did. Perhaps if you have other information that complicates the case, that will be worth considering, but it seems like the simplest answer is that he was somewhere else at the time he was shot. Perhaps he was at the flag, then cleared the square, got caught up in the ensuing fighting elsewhere, and was shot then, with his body only properly discovered and identified by people who knew him after the shooting occurred. The story you linked to doesnāt give any indication that he was, for example, with friends who saw him get killed.
Perhaps his friends were with him, but then it raises the question of why they were not also shot and how they were able to arrange transportation to get him to the hospital where he succumbed, which the article might prefer to gloss over.
Which reminds me:
Not familiar with HRIC, it was just the search results that came up and they seem to be based on the information provided by the first hand witnesses I mentioned.
This is exactly what I mean about how you donāt need to censor a story, just make your version much more accessible, because we keep getting these reactions along the lines of āwell, I donāt endorse the source here, itās just the first one I sawā. Just something to think about.
If those books provide any more details that could be pertinent to the evaluation of this guyās case, I invite you to share them with me, but I hope you can understand that Iām not going to go and buy a book so I can evaluate you claims unless thereās some extraordinary circumstance involved.
You can take more time to look over the information I gave you, since there were a few things made clear that I think you missed. Chief among them is that this isnāt a Boston Massacre situation, despite the obvious parallels. Unlike the redcoats, the PLA who were outside of vehicles and present and supervising the protest were unarmed. I never even insinuated that the protestors threw an incendiary at a soldier and then the others started blasting ā they couldnāt even if they wanted to! That segment had no guns! Though it seems that the soldiers who were in military vehicles were armed, and the victims were inside military vehicles.
What I am saying is that the severity of the crackdown and the ensuing violence were in part brought on by the harsh escalation of these militants hiding among the more mundane protestors committing murder against an unarmed soldier and then hanging up his corpse like a declaration of war! Well, they killed a couple, but one or two were just hung against a wreck while another was actually suspended in the air (I believe under a bridge). This was all well before the night of the crackdown, though I donāt know exactly when.
Iāve been using a framework loosely based on how crimes are sometimes argued, by establishing witnesses and timelines and looking for inconsistencies or other possible explanations. What could possibly have happened to produce this situation otherwise, with a soldierās corpse strung up in broad daylight with people able to just stand around and gawk at it? It only makes sense as being before the crackdown, when civilians could just stand around and gawk in broad daylight (rather than, at the gentlest, be pushed away by troops securing the area, possibly shot if they resisted) and the body is still strung up rather than taken down (as it would be after the crackdown ended and people could return to the area). Thereās no way that these pictures were taken during the fighting, no one is behaving like there is gunfire going off nearby.
Drawing again from the article with the photo, since we actually donāt need to speculate just with the photo:
The Chinese government also asserted that unarmed soldiers who had entered Tienanmen Square in the two days prior to June 4 were set on fire and lynched with their corpses hung from buses. Other soldiers were incinerated when army vehicles were torched with soldiers unable to evacuate and many others were badly beaten by violent mob attacks.
Unless the soldiers were sleeping on-site or taking 70-hour shifts, that means the murders probably took place the night of June 2 - 3 or thereabout, since they surely would have had another chance to report back otherwise. The article likewise says that the corpses were seemingly from vehicles getting petrol bombed, extracted from the vehicle, and strung up on the night of the 2nd to 3rd.
Itās worth noting that thereās a huge difference in how you approach a situation between āThereās an unruly group of protestors we need to removeā vs āThereās a pretty amicable group of protestors that also has militant splinters that have killed other soldiers via incendiaries ā possibly provided by the US ā and strung the corpse up. Oh, and they stole some guns tooā. Suddenly, people carrying such weapons ā which you are now looking for among every bag and bottle ā are established to not only be quite capable of killing you but seemingly out for blood, considering the display they made of the corpse.
Thank you, I really appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
Even you, when trying to be amicable with me, still use terms like āregime,ā which essentially means āgovernment I donāt likeā with the way it gets used.
Not that it makes it alright, but English is my third language so sometimes I am not as careful when using loaded words. I assure you itās unintentional, but as you say it may be a result of bias (bias is a weird thing in that itās easy to spot in someone else).
I think I will need to think a bit further on the subject, so I will definitely have a look at it again with fresh eyes, but I thank you for challenging my assumptions and providing me with sources I had not previously seen. Even though I canāt say that I have changed my mind, at least you have made me reconsider it.
Whatās bothering me a bit here, is that the official sources are demonstrably not telling the truth - and are actively opposing inquiries so that whatever truth may be gleaned is hard won. Itās perhaps not evidence in itself, but when a government it willfully hiding and obscuring something, that is highly suspect and doesnāt encourage confidence in what they do reveal.
Not that it makes it alright, but English is my third language so sometimes I am not as careful when using loaded words. I assure you itās unintentional, but as you say it may be a result of bias (bias is a weird thing in that itās easy to spot in someone else).
Ah, well, no worry in any case.
Whatās bothering me a bit here, is that the official sources are demonstrably not telling the truth - and are actively opposing inquiries so that whatever truth may be gleaned is hard won. Itās perhaps not evidence in itself, but when a government it willfully hiding and obscuring something, that is highly suspect and doesnāt encourage confidence in what they do reveal.
As I said before, I was avoiding the issue of death toll estimates because thatās something very complicated to establish even in situation without hostile media pushing disinformation. In my opinion I pretty solidly established that on the topics we did discuss ā the violence of the militants among the protestors (a drastic minority but impossible to ignore), the five people you mentioned, the clearing of the square ā the CPC told the truth.
Your talking about thousands of protestors dying refers back to books but I havenāt seen specific sources. I have seen the claim of ~500 dead in nearby hospitals and Iām not sure what to make of it. Between the confidentiality of patient records, such a huge proportion of the protestors not being locals,* the decentralized nature of the violence, it mostly happening at night, and there being a relative dearth of footage of the actual violence, I think itās very difficult to establish what the most plausible explanation is. As far as I can tell from the interview I posted before, that one student leader was skeptical of even 200 people dying because he just didnāt see that kind of violence where he was (in the square), though of course 200 is the minimum possible.
Irritatingly, the source Wikipedia gives for that number is page 161 of āBrook, Timothy (1998). Quelling the People: The Military Suppression of the Beijing Democracy Movement. Stanford: Stanford University Press,ā which makes it a nuisance to check because it doesnāt seem to be easily available online. With something as little as a set of names it should be possible to use public records to get a better idea of who these people are. 500 is still a very finite number, weāre not dealing with a genocide with millions of victims, even one person could go through 500 people and determine what their involvement was ā if any, since Beijing had a population of 9.9 million people in 1988 and 10.8 million in 1990, so itās quite plausible that a number of these deaths are simply people who died unrelated to the event. For reference, prior to Covid, in New York City around 145 people died every day, and thatās a smaller and much more advanced city than Beijing in 1989.
In terms of victims who have been identified, letās look again at Wikipedia:
The Tiananmen Mothers, a victimsā advocacy group co-founded by Ding Zilin and Zhang Xianling, whose children were killed by the government during the crackdown, have identified 202 victims as of August 2011. In the face of government interference, the group has worked painstakingly to locate victimsā families and collect information about the victims. Their tally had grown from 155 in 1999 to 202 in 2011. The list includes four individuals who committed suicide on or after 4 June for reasons related to their involvement in the demonstrations.[citation needed][g]
Former protester Wu Renhua of the Chinese Alliance for Democracy, an overseas group agitating for democratic reform in China, said that he was only able to identify and verify 15 military deaths. Wu asserts that if deaths from events unrelated to demonstrators were removed from the count, only seven deaths among military personnel might be counted as from being ākilled in actionā by rioters.
As a note, I think that the claim that 8 soldiers died by means other than being ākilled in actionā by militants/rioters is correct. I remember a story about an APC getting in an accident and the people in the back being burned alive (no, they wouldnāt be the only soldiers who burned alive, there were some who were hit by petrol bombs), but that only accounts for 6. A seventh was reportedly hit by friendly fire and the eighth (afaik) died of complications a month later, which pedantically isnāt being killed āin action,ā though I think that makes the wording obfuscatory. It doesnāt matter in the scheme of things, but I wanted to mention it since it was a finite list.
More to the point: I really struggle to imagine how it could possibly be 500 people, let alone thousands, if this group that is single-mindedly dedicated to the purpose of establishing a certain depiction of the event could only managed to identify ~200 people killed, and thatās taking their claim at face value. Even if you want to be really pessimistic about how transparent it is, if 2000 people died, can really only 10% be identified after decades? Iām not saying they should have every name ā Tank Man hasnāt been identified either, though he also wasnāt killed ā but starting from an age cohort and having an very specific date of death should narrow things down drastically.
Anyway, I still donāt have much to say about the tallying business because itās honestly not a process that I really understand, that could all be totally wrong-headed, I just wanted to offer some thoughts based on accessible evidence since it was something that you wanted to talk about (and thatās fair enough on your part).
*which, let me be clear, isnāt some āoutside agitatorsā thing. Traveling to the capitol to protest is totally legitimate, it just makes it much harder to track down who was there.
Anyway, it was a positive experience talking to you and it got me to do some more research, so thanks!
I should have been more specific that a āconversationā to me is a little different from the formal exercise of a ādebateā or what have you, and that formal exercise, especially when itās littered with tacit assumptions that are much easier to drop in than to unpack and refute, such as:
Itās just not very engaging to me, you know? But thatās fine, if anything youāll benefit from me not going on for too long because Iām excited by ideas Iām discussing, we can just have a simple exercise in looking at evidence and Iāll be more mindful of my tone. I apologize for letting myself come off so rudely.
That having been said:
I donāt plan on using those sources, but I would like to point out that you either are expressing yourself poorly or have a mistaken idea here.
Either you mean to say that āSomeone on the internet saying āJust trust me broāā is not a good source
Or you are concerned with platforms being āacademicā in a way that is tied up in silly formalism.
[I was going to include for option one that āHaving the task of argument be exported to a video essay is kind of obnoxious,ā but on the other hand having it exported to a book is arguably much more obnoxious, so I think the main issue is sourcing]
Obviously I agree with the first version, but then itās good to talk about sourcing more plainly. In the second case, well, I think you drastically underestimate the pablum that gets published in academic journals. You can find people saying any old thing so long as itās a thesis that is friendly to the publisher or the publisherās audience. I did a research paper on Michael Parenti not too long ago and let me tell you, the āliteratureā attacking him in peer-reviewed journals is dog shit, plain and simple. Just the most insipid and unsubstantiated arguments youāve ever seen. There was one that could have been a good critique if the author had a limited enough scope for the length of what they were writing to not leave their thesis completely hanging, but that review was a shining city on a hill compared to the others.
But if you want something a little more relevant, Iāll mention that people do indeed lie in books, and there are multiple cottage industries dedicated to producing stories with no concern for if they are lies or not so long as they support a certain range of theses [example]. If we were talking about the DPRK (letās not), it would not be a good idea to crack open Yeonmi Parkās memoir and quote from it as believable witness testimony.
Anyway, back to the main subject:
Agreed
Even the journo who said 10k recanted! His high-end estimate was like 3.5k or something, which is still way higher than others but way less than what he said before.
Well, whatever, that part isnāt important at the moment.
I keep finding tangents, but you generally also agree that the HRIC isnāt a great source and are just providing those links for convenience, right? Since whatever might be said of the authors you mention, the website doesnāt list so much as a witness of the killings on any of the four profiles. Mind you, several students did die (I think the lowest estimate is 30-something, along with ~200 other fatalities) and I am not contesting that these were real people who were killed by the PLA in that area at around that time (though June 3rd is listed for one and that seems early), merely that these accounts are not compelling for the argument that people died in the square. The US by this point is infamous for laundering its foreign policy goals through NGOs like the NED.
By contrast, I will point you to leaked secret cables from the US Embassy in Beijing which state that there was no bloodshed in the square itself.
We also have this article citing both a Reuters reporter and a Chinese dissident who support that there was no death in the square. It should be noted that, if I am reading both accounts correctly, the reporter would have been in very close proximity to where one of the students you listed was said to have died (ābeneath the national flagā). While the image is full of pathos, it doesnāt seem to hold up. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something.
In any case, itās no wonder that monsters like Chai Ling, the student leader who infamously gave the interview before the fact about trying to drive her flock into gunfire, would later give sensational reports of slaughter when they themselves werenāt even present at the time said slaughter supposedly happened. I hope Youtube is acceptable when itās for archival footage of a documentary and a news broadcast. I hadnāt personally seen the clips after the first interview with Chai Ling until looking it up just now. Iāve gotta say, though I obviously am politically against him, Hou Dejian seems admirable.
Regarding the lynching [and let me correct myself again that it might have been an immolated corpse that was strung up by its neck, i.e. the hanging was not the cause of death, though burning an unarmed person to death sure qualifies by the informal definition of "lynching], I guess step one is to dig up those photos . . . You would not believe how annoying it is, but it makes sense that the photos would be constantly taken down.
While Iām looking, hereās another leaked testimony from a diplomat.
[Massive CW for extreme violence and some nudity] Found it, scroll down to just shy of halfway and you will see the graphic images. I think even from the pictures alone, the timeline is self-evident, since civilians would not be left in such close proximity to corpses (or torched tanks) after the violence concluded. Itās plain that some āprotestorsā (a tiny number within the larger movement) committed murder and desecrated the corpses before the government retaliated. It was probably a slightly larger number who were involved in messing with the vehicles, since that appeals to a basic hooliganism (see the people still standing on top of one).
Iām less interested in tallying the specific death toll than the more definable and finite issues like āWere soldiers killed beforehand?ā and āDid anyone die in the square itself?ā Of course, those arenāt the only questions and we can do the tallying thing if you insist, but I wanted to start by focusing on the more clear-cut topics.
Regarding tone, it may just be because itās very difficult to convey over text (and I am just misinterpreting), but also that my short stint here has led me to believe that while I in theory share political views with socialists here, these so called ātankiesā are also very confrontational and polemic for no apparent reason (apparent to me at least). Said differences interest me though, so I am trying to grasp just what it all boils down to and what if anything I can learn from it.
Actually, I donāt really mind long winded tangents as long as they are interesting, funny or preferably both!
Pretty much this. ābroā science, lessons from the āschool of hard knocksā, insane 4 hr yt videos with absolutely no source references and Twitter threads with wild statements corroborated by screenshots from some obscure sourceā¦ I could go on but it seems you understand what I mean.
Yes, 10k is inaccurate. At the same time though, you have the mayor of Beijing claiming 200, the Ministry of Public Security claiming 563, while hospital records show about 500 as a minimum baseline, so I guess as far as official sources go we canāt really trust them either. 2 600 seems like the best estimate based on what I have found, which is still a huge number if you ask me when compared to other protests of similar size in western countries, consider e.g. the frequently quite violent protests in Paris and how the police there doesnāt murder a few thousands just because the government doesnāt agree with the protests (apologies for the digression).
Not familiar with HRIC, it was just the search results that came up and they seem to be based on the information provided by the first hand witnesses I mentioned.
Itās quite possible that one person saw something another did not, or that they were not there at the same time. Just based on my experience in crowded places like concerts, having complete situational awareness is impossible, and I am sure that with just 5 deaths in a huge square filled with thousands of people at night time you would have a substantial number that did not see anything. Their deaths are still quite likely though, as there are multiple sources that back this up - see the ones I have referenced above if you have any doubt.
Itās also worth noting that the various armies called in acted quite differently from one another, since some were more or less local to the city and others were pulled from far away places, with no local attachments and with varying levels of sympathetic commanders - so itās quite possible that some groups of soldiers would have acted compassionately while others would have been more keen to shoot first and ask questions later. This is also supported by the fighting and killing between the different armies, and could (in part) explain the differences between the eye witness reports.
Itās fine, I am not watching 3 hours of unsubstantiated claims but 6 minutes is alright.
I donāt think itās that plain. As mentioned, you have several elements all killing each other at various points:
Within that, you have soldiers being suddenly surrounded and encouraged by protestors to rise up against their perceived tyrants, you have civilians witnessing the murder of their friends and you have soldiers fearing for their lives - soldiers I might add that might have had no freaking idea what is happening because up until that point they were happily living their lives as illiterate farmers and now suddenly thereās chaos and their commander is telling them to defend themselves and now everyone without a uniform starts looking like a threat.
So you see, I donāt think I can attribute a lot of confidence to reports claiming that the protestors started lynching soldiers which in turn made them open fire. I think itāa an order of magnitude more likely that things got out of hand after the first phase of the dispersal, people were then hurt and things escalated from there up until the point where you have civilians stringing up burnt corpses in the street, soldiers summarily executing protestors and tanks running over people.
Regardless, a command was centrally issued and the consequence was a slaughter. Responsibility for the murders falls on the government of the PRC in my opinion, mens rea and actus reus.
Hereās a place where perhaps I can be helpful, since I feel like I wonāt be much use elsewhere. Pay close attention to the way that the anticommunists here talk about their opposition and imagine being the subject of that talk by a substantial portion of this userbase and basically the entire mainstream of other websites like Reddit (of which it borders on being a carbon copy). Itās easy to see Marxists referred to as āred fascists,ā āgenocide deniers,ā sometimes flat-out āNazis,ā along with being accused of being a āshill,ā a ābot,ā a ātroll,ā a foreign agent (you can see people complaining about āhow many Russiansā are on this site, but they donāt actually have reason to believe many Russians are here). All of that sits behind the sneering accusation of ātankie.ā
Now, itās kind of whatever to me when itās online ā and this sort of āanti-tankieā framework almost always is ā but some people take that sort of thing as a serious insult because equating someone to Nazis is a pretty serious insult. All this while the people making the accusation bandy about things like the 10k figure we discussed, which is just ridiculous but you are treated as a holocaust denier for trying to interrogate its dogma. Even you, when trying to be amicable with me, still use terms like āregime,ā which essentially means āgovernment I donāt likeā with the way it gets used.
So, I donāt encourage people to get needlessly combative, but I can slip into it myself and I struggle to fault others who do so as well (though I encourage them to take things dispassionately!). I hope that that explains a little bit of it, because personal insult just saturates the environment in some places.
Regarding the rest of this, let me know if the organization of information is too hectic and Iāll rewrite it.
I do not doubt that these are real people who are dead, let me repeat that again. That said, these 5 are singled out because they supposedly died in the square.
Iāve presented you with witness testimony from multiple sources saying that people were not, in fact, killed in the square and the crowd was dispersed pretty uneventfully (though I think to actually reach the square in the first place people were beat back with batons to make way). Most of the people were already gone before the dispersal because most of the protestors listened to the warnings and the deadline.
Quoting the photo article:
The square was mostly cleared peacefully and those who refused were beaten with batons to drive them out. They werenāt just wantonly shot.
Thereās no reason that the student leader who said he stayed until 6:30 AM wouldnāt have seen this victim, since the victim was shot āearly in the morning on June 4thā and the leader witnessed the square being cleared, just as many others did. Perhaps if you have other information that complicates the case, that will be worth considering, but it seems like the simplest answer is that he was somewhere else at the time he was shot. Perhaps he was at the flag, then cleared the square, got caught up in the ensuing fighting elsewhere, and was shot then, with his body only properly discovered and identified by people who knew him after the shooting occurred. The story you linked to doesnāt give any indication that he was, for example, with friends who saw him get killed.
Perhaps his friends were with him, but then it raises the question of why they were not also shot and how they were able to arrange transportation to get him to the hospital where he succumbed, which the article might prefer to gloss over.
Which reminds me:
This is exactly what I mean about how you donāt need to censor a story, just make your version much more accessible, because we keep getting these reactions along the lines of āwell, I donāt endorse the source here, itās just the first one I sawā. Just something to think about.
If those books provide any more details that could be pertinent to the evaluation of this guyās case, I invite you to share them with me, but I hope you can understand that Iām not going to go and buy a book so I can evaluate you claims unless thereās some extraordinary circumstance involved.
You can take more time to look over the information I gave you, since there were a few things made clear that I think you missed. Chief among them is that this isnāt a Boston Massacre situation, despite the obvious parallels. Unlike the redcoats, the PLA who were outside of vehicles and present and supervising the protest were unarmed. I never even insinuated that the protestors threw an incendiary at a soldier and then the others started blasting ā they couldnāt even if they wanted to! That segment had no guns! Though it seems that the soldiers who were in military vehicles were armed, and the victims were inside military vehicles.
What I am saying is that the severity of the crackdown and the ensuing violence were in part brought on by the harsh escalation of these militants hiding among the more mundane protestors committing murder against an unarmed soldier and then hanging up his corpse like a declaration of war! Well, they killed a couple, but one or two were just hung against a wreck while another was actually suspended in the air (I believe under a bridge). This was all well before the night of the crackdown, though I donāt know exactly when.
Iāve been using a framework loosely based on how crimes are sometimes argued, by establishing witnesses and timelines and looking for inconsistencies or other possible explanations. What could possibly have happened to produce this situation otherwise, with a soldierās corpse strung up in broad daylight with people able to just stand around and gawk at it? It only makes sense as being before the crackdown, when civilians could just stand around and gawk in broad daylight (rather than, at the gentlest, be pushed away by troops securing the area, possibly shot if they resisted) and the body is still strung up rather than taken down (as it would be after the crackdown ended and people could return to the area). Thereās no way that these pictures were taken during the fighting, no one is behaving like there is gunfire going off nearby.
Drawing again from the article with the photo, since we actually donāt need to speculate just with the photo:
Unless the soldiers were sleeping on-site or taking 70-hour shifts, that means the murders probably took place the night of June 2 - 3 or thereabout, since they surely would have had another chance to report back otherwise. The article likewise says that the corpses were seemingly from vehicles getting petrol bombed, extracted from the vehicle, and strung up on the night of the 2nd to 3rd.
Itās worth noting that thereās a huge difference in how you approach a situation between āThereās an unruly group of protestors we need to removeā vs āThereās a pretty amicable group of protestors that also has militant splinters that have killed other soldiers via incendiaries ā possibly provided by the US ā and strung the corpse up. Oh, and they stole some guns tooā. Suddenly, people carrying such weapons ā which you are now looking for among every bag and bottle ā are established to not only be quite capable of killing you but seemingly out for blood, considering the display they made of the corpse.
The article with the photos is worth reading.
Thank you, I really appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
Not that it makes it alright, but English is my third language so sometimes I am not as careful when using loaded words. I assure you itās unintentional, but as you say it may be a result of bias (bias is a weird thing in that itās easy to spot in someone else).
I think I will need to think a bit further on the subject, so I will definitely have a look at it again with fresh eyes, but I thank you for challenging my assumptions and providing me with sources I had not previously seen. Even though I canāt say that I have changed my mind, at least you have made me reconsider it.
Whatās bothering me a bit here, is that the official sources are demonstrably not telling the truth - and are actively opposing inquiries so that whatever truth may be gleaned is hard won. Itās perhaps not evidence in itself, but when a government it willfully hiding and obscuring something, that is highly suspect and doesnāt encourage confidence in what they do reveal.
Ah, well, no worry in any case.
As I said before, I was avoiding the issue of death toll estimates because thatās something very complicated to establish even in situation without hostile media pushing disinformation. In my opinion I pretty solidly established that on the topics we did discuss ā the violence of the militants among the protestors (a drastic minority but impossible to ignore), the five people you mentioned, the clearing of the square ā the CPC told the truth.
Your talking about thousands of protestors dying refers back to books but I havenāt seen specific sources. I have seen the claim of ~500 dead in nearby hospitals and Iām not sure what to make of it. Between the confidentiality of patient records, such a huge proportion of the protestors not being locals,* the decentralized nature of the violence, it mostly happening at night, and there being a relative dearth of footage of the actual violence, I think itās very difficult to establish what the most plausible explanation is. As far as I can tell from the interview I posted before, that one student leader was skeptical of even 200 people dying because he just didnāt see that kind of violence where he was (in the square), though of course 200 is the minimum possible.
Irritatingly, the source Wikipedia gives for that number is page 161 of āBrook, Timothy (1998). Quelling the People: The Military Suppression of the Beijing Democracy Movement. Stanford: Stanford University Press,ā which makes it a nuisance to check because it doesnāt seem to be easily available online. With something as little as a set of names it should be possible to use public records to get a better idea of who these people are. 500 is still a very finite number, weāre not dealing with a genocide with millions of victims, even one person could go through 500 people and determine what their involvement was ā if any, since Beijing had a population of 9.9 million people in 1988 and 10.8 million in 1990, so itās quite plausible that a number of these deaths are simply people who died unrelated to the event. For reference, prior to Covid, in New York City around 145 people died every day, and thatās a smaller and much more advanced city than Beijing in 1989.
In terms of victims who have been identified, letās look again at Wikipedia:
As a note, I think that the claim that 8 soldiers died by means other than being ākilled in actionā by militants/rioters is correct. I remember a story about an APC getting in an accident and the people in the back being burned alive (no, they wouldnāt be the only soldiers who burned alive, there were some who were hit by petrol bombs), but that only accounts for 6. A seventh was reportedly hit by friendly fire and the eighth (afaik) died of complications a month later, which pedantically isnāt being killed āin action,ā though I think that makes the wording obfuscatory. It doesnāt matter in the scheme of things, but I wanted to mention it since it was a finite list.
More to the point: I really struggle to imagine how it could possibly be 500 people, let alone thousands, if this group that is single-mindedly dedicated to the purpose of establishing a certain depiction of the event could only managed to identify ~200 people killed, and thatās taking their claim at face value. Even if you want to be really pessimistic about how transparent it is, if 2000 people died, can really only 10% be identified after decades? Iām not saying they should have every name ā Tank Man hasnāt been identified either, though he also wasnāt killed ā but starting from an age cohort and having an very specific date of death should narrow things down drastically.
Anyway, I still donāt have much to say about the tallying business because itās honestly not a process that I really understand, that could all be totally wrong-headed, I just wanted to offer some thoughts based on accessible evidence since it was something that you wanted to talk about (and thatās fair enough on your part).
*which, let me be clear, isnāt some āoutside agitatorsā thing. Traveling to the capitol to protest is totally legitimate, it just makes it much harder to track down who was there.
Anyway, it was a positive experience talking to you and it got me to do some more research, so thanks!