This nauseating propaganda screed justifying the Tiananmen massacre is disheartening in its reflection of the Party-state apologism that passes for some China commentary these days, and of the worsening deterioration of Twitter’s (dis)information environment. But it is also a helpfully instructive lesson in recognizing the actual emptiness of such pro-CCP rhetoric.
- It represents established history as fresh, previously-obscure facts. The understanding that much of the killing of civilians occurred off the square, for example, is well-known. Consider Robin Munro’s (of Human Rights Watch fame, no less) 1993 book on the demonstrations: “There was no massacre in Tiananmen Square. But on the western approach roads there was a blood bath that claimed hundreds of lives. To insist on this distinction is not splitting hairs.”
- It plays loose with details, implying (with careful plausible deniability and ambiguity) that soldiers opened fire only after demonstrators had killed members of the army. Contrast this with one eyewitness account from a British tourist: “three young girl students knelt down in front of him and begged him to stop firing. And he killed them. An old gentleman put his hand up because he wanted to cross the road, and he shot him. The magazine of his gun was empty so he tried to reload and the crowd came in and hung him from a tree."
- It appeals to the complicatedness of history while actually flattening the narrative. She protests that “peaceful protesters vs brutal regime” is an incomplete picture but then seeks to replace it with a characterization of “violent protestors vs unprepared troops”, in turn omitting the voices of demonstrators clearly captured in so much of the archival footage directing the crowd to stick to their commitments to peacefully protest, asking compatriots to put down sticks and captured weapons, convincing comrades to spare a captured soldier. The famous footage she chose to share is arguably among the most peaceful segments out of hours upon hours of video captured at ground level that would much more honestly capture the complexity and chaos—but in a far less favorable light for the soldiers.
- It is flagrantly non-journalistic in its claims about how Chinese view these events today. Citation: “Most ordinary Chinese people I know”??? It’d be a bad joke if it wasn’t such an infuriatingly obvious attempt to seize the microphone and speak for entire peoples.
- It is notably Panglossian and deterministic in its historical storyline. There was no “more right” thing that the Party-state could possibly have done for China. Brutally suppressing the demonstrators in fact “saved” the country. Who knows what “might” have happened if the government had negotiated with those protesting or taken their perspective seriously? Oh, and all of modern Russia’s ills by the way can clearly be traced back to the country’s political reforms and the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
In conclusion, if the Chinese state’s use of live ammunition and lethal force to disperse vast civilian demonstrations in June 1989 can be excused as acceptable, then there is practically no limit to the violence that any government anywhere can inflict upon the people it governs. The ends can justify any means. Any assembly by the people to demand redress can be dismissed as externally-driven destabilization. Perhaps a trickle of bots, little pinks, and useful tankie idiots will soon begin accosting me for this post by exclaiming whatabout the United States’ historical crimes and failings, but my fear—and yours—should precisely be the fear of increasingly legitimized authoritarianism anywhere, be it in Washington, Beijing, Naypyidaw, or Jerusalem. We must fight for institutions that codify the self-restraint of the power-holders, and stand in solidarity with those carrying out similar fights elsewhere.
My hope for the future remains for a better world that is more fair, just, free, and prosperous. In no conceivable version of that better world could there possibly be room for a notion that the Tiananmen massacre was excusable or correct.