Illuminating and Misleading Takes on China 20 Years Since Tiananmen

I've already had my chance, via both print and online pieces, to offer my thoughts about the protests that erupted in scores of Chinese cities twenty years ago, the June 4th Massacre that crushed that upheaval, and how China has changed in the last twenty years. Meanwhile, though this is my first Tiananmen-themed piece for the Huffington Post, other contributors have been offering regular readers excellent reports and commentaries on specific subjects, ranging from the Tiananmen movement's significance to China's current leaders (subject of a fine piece by Susan Shirk) to the regime's decision to block Twitter and other social media (a topic handled well here by David Flumenbaum and also dealt with smartly and stylishly by Rebecca MacKinnon and Andrew Leonard on their blogs). I'm writing now with a different purpose: to comment on the commentaries. The Chinese events of 1989 have been revisited in so many ways lately that it doesn't seem too soon to provide a first assessment of some of the best and worst discussions of either the struggle as a whole or specific dimensions of it that have appeared, and to ask if the latest chatter on China fits in with larger patterns in coverage of that county.

As someone who finished a doctoral dissertation on Chinese student protests of the 1910s-1940s while the Tiananmen protest wave was underway (a revised version appeared as a book two years later) and soon afterward started serving as a consultant for the excellent documentary "The Gate of Heavenly Peace," I've spent a full two decades now not just paying attention to developments in China but also tracking international discussions of the June 4th Massacre and its precedents and legacy. Though I'll take issue with some parts of recent commentaries soon (pointing either to mistakes of fact or problems of interpretations, including the tendency by some analysts to overstate the degree of American influence on the students of 1989 or the gulf that separates the aspirations of those youths from those of their counterparts in the Beijing of today), I want to stress at the outset that I've found much to admire about some recent writings, as well as the overall coverage offered by some venues, including the Guardian and NPR websites. I've even learned some new specific facts about phenomena I thought I knew well: e.g., that the photographer who took the most famous shot of the man stopping the tanks thought, initially, that the man's arrival would "screw up" his photograph.

Getting down to specific new writings that seem particularly valuable, here are some examples of things I like. I was moved by the "growing cage" metaphor employed by Beijing-based independent writer Lijia Zhang, who marched in a Nanjing protest of 1989 as a young worker. She says that she and her fellow demonstrators felt trapped and longed to be freer; now, while still confined in a "cage," it is one that has "grown so big" for many of them that they can go about their daily lives unaware of "its limitations," thanks to the state being less intrusive and realms of private freedom expanding. I also found novelist Yu Hua's op-ed on gaining a new appreciation for the term "the people" in 1989 moving. And various Western journalists (both relative newcomers to the China beat like Mara Hvistendahl and people who were on the scene in 1989, such as James Miles and James Kynge) have done admirable pieces.

On the other hand, though, I've been dismayed to see some misguided old notions about the June 4th Massacre continue to circulate, and to see some odd ideas about contrasts between then and now get introduced or reinforced. In the familiar but still wrong category is the notion that the only people the troops killed in early June of 1989 were students; a larger number of those slain were workers. To cite just two examples of high-profile North American publications that do this, the National Post introduces a piece on Tiananmen's legacy by stating that the massacre was just of students, while an editorial in USA Today certainly gives readers that impression.

Another old problem that has resurfaced is a tendency to reduce the complexity of the grievances (economic as well as political), inspirations (provided by ideals rooted in China's own past as well from abroad), and symbols (the Goddess of Democracy was modeled on the Statue of Liberty but not simply a replica) involved in the struggle. To call the event a "pro-democracy" or "democracy" movement has always seemed an oversimplification to some analysts (myself included), and Kynge does a particularly good job of explaining its limitations. Still worse is to boil the undertaking down, as the Washington Times just did, to an effort to "bring America to China"; not only is this inaccurate, but it plays into a long-standing Chinese government argument that the protesters were somehow simply doing the bidding of the West and hence were not the "patriots" they claimed to be.

In terms of contrasts between the past and the present, there have been many apt handlings of the issue but also many that have gone astray. It is curious that a BBC video uses the fact that the current generation expresses itself by going to rock concerts to flag their difference from 1989 youths interested in politics, without noting that Chinese rocker Cui Jian was a key influence on the Tiananmen protesters. Similarly, while the specific forms that nationalism takes now may be different, it doesn't work to state or imply that nationalism played no role in the 1989 protests, since another singer the students found inspiring back then was Hou Dejian, whose most popular song at the time, "Children of the Dragon," had a strong nationalistic element to it.

Problems also arise when overly simplistic statements are made about then and now relating to freedom of speech and patterns of unrest. Nicholas Kristof muses, misleadingly, on why there are so "few protests" these days (there are a great many, just not ones that bring together people from different social groups or spread widely in geographical terms). Other writers misleading present the taboo regarding discussion of the June 4th Massacre in a manner that suggests a Big Brother state is tightly monitoring even the most private conversations, when the reality is that many people in China now feel free (and indeed are free), as they weren't always before, to talk among themselves about even hot-button topics, such as the crackdown in 1989, that would likely get them into trouble if they published about them or held meetings to discuss them.

In thinking about what patterns are revealed by these trends, I've found myself returning to an excellent piece that Timothy Garton Ash wrote just before the flood of stories linked to 1989 anniversary started, which the Los Angeles Times ran as "Lack of News about China has Nothing to Do with Bias" (it had other titles in other papers). One of his themes was the folly of putting too much emphasis on one kind of binary: that of the division between "positive" and "negative" stories about China. When Chinese official and unofficial commentators periodically complain that the Western press is distorting foreign understanding of the PRC by running too many "negative" stories about it and not enough "positive" ones, he pointed out, they overlook the fact that media systems in the West tend to thrive on "negative" reports about ALL places. And when it comes to getting a distorted sense of what is going on in the PRC, the "problem with regular China coverage in the mainstream western media is not its negativity; it's simply that there's too little of it," with the result that outsiders get not too jaundiced but too simplistic a sense of the complexities of the multiple and overlapping and often contradictory transformations reshaping Chinese society.

The recent situation suggests that in addition to this binary, others also can get in the way of understanding. Drawing a sharp divided between "internationally" minded and "nationalistic" generations of Chinese youths can lead us astray. So can thinking that the story of what happened in 1989 can be told in only two ways, the incorrect manner that the Chinese government tells it and the correct manner in which it is told outside of China, as one can be convinced that there are many ways to get the facts wrong, even if one believes, as I definitely do, that the Communist Party's "Big Lie" that there was no massacre on June 4th is the most disturbing of all ways to do so.

Ironically, the problem since Garton Ash published his piece has not been that there has been "too little" Western coverage of China. There's been plenty, thanks to not just the Tiananmen anniversary but also other developments, ranging from trips to Beijing by well-known political figures, to the latest North Korean nuclear crisis (these always lead to discussions of China's new importance in global diplomacy), to GM announcing that Hummers will henceforth be produced in the PRC. And yet, one suggestion that Garton Ash makes in his piece is as valuable in times of feast as in times of famine where China coverage is concerned. He tells readers who want to make sense of China from outside of the country that their best bet is to head to the "web, armed with a few tip-offs," as they can find there "an Aladdin's cave of rich, diverse, detailed reporting and analysis," adding that the should try "chinadigitaltimes.net and danwei.org as a first 'open sesame.'"

Well, sure enough, the two websites he mentions did an admirable job throughout the last few weeks of steering visitors toward some of the most worthwhile commentaries on 1989 and on comparisons between China then and China now, while also at times pointing out flaws in coverage of the topic. But that does not exhaust the list of sites worth turning to for a richer perspective on Chinese developments. And, interestingly, one of the places I've been turning to on the web to provide an "open sesame" for insightful analysis of the continuities as well as contrasts between the Tiananmen generation and today's Chinese students is a lively blog that Timothy Garton Ash is surely reading as well. It's called "Six," it just ran an excellent post called "Peking University of June 4th: 2009 is not 1989, and it's not 1984 either," and it's run by a 26 year-old British student* named Alec Ash, who hails from Oxford and has a father who first made his mark on the world of commentary by writing about the PolishSolidarity movement that won a famous electoral victory exactly 20 years ago today (and whose initials are "TGA").

* Author's correction added June 8: I've learned that he's actually only 23.

Comments

[TAC4]

In order for us to completely understand an issue, especially one as talked about and complex as the 4 June Tiananmen incident, we must view it from all angles, Asia Chronicle (www.asiachroniclenews.net) can help you better understand Asia issues.

[InformationAsymmetry]

Funny that someone would recommend Chinadigit­altimes.co­m as a rich information source on the web that can augment one's newspaper readings. Chinadigitaltimes mostly just repost newspaper articles, and the editors of the website have fairly narrow focuses on the topics and newsarticles they choose.

[kbdancer]

This case just goes to show effective judgement and analysis are only possible with a 360 view (sorry to CNN on you all there) of any issue. All historical nuances and present realities must be weighed together to get a clear picture of what the situation truly is. As the last commentor brought out, it's difficult for such careful consideration of all aspects of an issue to occur when an entire generation is largely apathetic about it, such as here with the Tienanmen Square case (though I don't pretend to understand the full scope of the event or present perspectives on it, which I have said is needed to consider before weighing in on an issue).

[BruceNM]

My wife was a university student in Tianjin at the time of the uprising. She remembers thinking that the students and others who were demonstrating were treading on very dangerous ground, and she felt that their chances of success were minuscule at best. She told me yesterday that she doesn't see what the Western media is so excited about concerning the student uprisings. The vast majority of the Chinese people, according to her, couldn't care less about Tiananmen. She claims to echo the sentiments of the vast majority of the Chinese in stating that she wishes the Western media would just butt out and let China take care of its own problems, which, she feels, China is doing quite well.

Incidentally, my wife still lives in Tianjin.

[FairTalk]

I lived in China in 1988 and 1989. I saw American teachers take their students out of classes, and "parade in the streets" during these various demonstrations. I also had Chinese college students tell me that their American college teachers told them this type od demonstration was permitted in America, because America has free speech, and this behavior ids protected by law.

Shortly after I returned to the Us, a local city newspaper did a stroy, and interview, of a local woman who had been teaching college in Tianjin. This woman explained that she had explained to her students that in America people had the right to carry on this way. She claimed it was free speach. She also led her students in the disruptive, and often violent demonstrations that rocked Tianjin.

When I tried to explain to students thsi was not true, they didn't believe me.

One wonders to what degree outsiders inflamed this affair

The Bonus March vs Tiananmen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jhjn6PCsFA

Folks, you can't make this stuff up!

[IsaacKuo]

If you are truly interested in the truth, then you would call on the Chinese government to stop suppressing discussion of Tiananmen and let the truth out.

[curiousdwk]

I'm afraid this author also missed the mark. Any commentary that completely avoids the US parallel with Kent State has missed the mark. Like this one.

[IsaacKuo]

Why? Are you so USA-centric that you can't consider any commentary valid unless it ultimately revolves around the USA?

[FairTalk]

Part 1 introduction

Thanks for the interesting post, filled with links. While I do not agree with much of what you say, you nave noticed some things that other "journalists" didn't.

First, Hou Dejian did a nice video about what he saw as a student "leader" who stayed in Tiananmen until 6am on June 4th. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbX0gAk3zRA

Secondly, there was an analysis of how the media covered the Tiananmen Affair, both Chinese and western and although it tried as hard as it could to whitewash the fact that the western media completely blew it, it nevertheless came to some damning conclusions ind included some gems the vast majority of Americans, and "perhaps" journalists were not aware of.

It also cautioned that the broad, open and fair coverage by the Chinese media may actually have been misinterpreted by Chinese that these protests were actually santions by the state. (Please do understand that many who took part in the unrest had done similatr things as Little Red Guards during the cultural revolution,. I am not speculating, I know this as a fact, due to the many "confessions" that were made to me. You see, revealing one's dark behavior to foreigners was a catharsis for many Chinese, not unlike a confessionsl in a Cathoilc Church.)

[FairTalk]

Part 1a

Thirdly, I do not see, anywhere, a mention of the degree to which outside involvement instigated and escalated the unrest in China in the Spring of 1989. Since I lived there, and witnessed this outside involvement, including US, I am not interested in being bashed for stating the truth here and now. When I returned to the US, in mid June, I immediately called the State Department about the media coverage. At that time I was not aware that the US was about to cover up it's involvement in the Tiananmen Affair.

Fourth, the "cage" expierience you describe is apt. It was expressed to me by many Chinese in several cities throughout China. In Shanghai I was told they felt like pidgeons in pidgeon holes. This was from someone who longed to go to the US where he could "be free." When I responded that it was awful that China wouldn't let Chinese people go to the US, I was informed, by a very surprised, and shocked that I did not know US policy, that is was the US that refused to issue visas to Chinese. When I challenged this, he showed me documantary proof. When I contacted my friends at the US Consulate it was confirmed, in some of the most racist language I have ever heard.

[FairTalk]

Part 2

Fifth, it is not true that China blocked the news coverage of the unrest of the Spring of 1989. In fact, China TV stations dutifully filmend and aired all of it. The difference was in the commentary, where the Chinese news team understood what people were saying and what meaning things had, western "news" men commentary was misleading at best, and outright lies at worse. Since I did not live in a "foreign compound" and since I had "good" Chinese "papers" and a "green card" I was able to hear both CNN and China news, and travel freely among Chinese, and to different areas, to ask and listen to what the Chinese were saying. I am dismayed at the sometimes completely fabricated stories that western media put out.

Finally, in case you believe that I am an apologist for China, or am defending China, and that is the reason for this comment, be assured that one thing I agree with, is the people should have the truth. But, contrary to what you believe, it os the western world, and the ASmerican people in particular that has been denied the truth, because the MSM feeding frenzi cares more about their rights of a free press than to The People's Right to Know. I wish we could have trials, with the journalists put under oath, and then see, in the face of the evidence, if they continue to lie to the American people.

[IsaacKuo]

To prove you aren't just an apologist, you should criticize the Chinese government for suppressing discussion of the truth about Tiananmen.

I have yet to see you criticize anything the Chinese government has done or is doing, which practically defines you as an apologist. No government is perfect, which is why anyone who is NOT an apologist can always find something to criticize about any government.

[FairTalk]

I am an American, so I critize my government. The Chinese, inside China critize the Chinese government.

if I and my friends held demonstrations in front of the White House, re would be forcebally removed, charged with crimes, and jailed. I imagine the same thing happenes in China.

There is an effective way to critize one's government and an ineffective way. China has been very responsive to the Chinese people, and changes in China are repid, maybe even too rapid. It is America that continues to syffer from the cold war hangover, funding all kinds of militants all over the world, in its misguided policy of gunboat democracy.

[FairTalk]

Part 3

We, as a people, cannot exercize our democratic rights, if some people set themselves up as experts, and deny us the information we need to be properly informed, so we can call our representatives and let them know what we thing. This is how it went down with Iraq.

[JudgeMoonbox]

"We, as a people, cannot exercize our democratic rights, if some people set themselves up as experts, and deny us the information we need to be properly informed,"

Isn't that what you're doing? Or does the definition of "some people" not include you as you have the privilege?

I am dissatisfied with the US media, but the Limbaugh dancers we have, bending over backwards as far as they can in hopes ol' Rush won't find something to whine about in the inch their shoulders are off the floor, have allowed a much freer discussion than the Chinese censors had.

[FairTalk]

Do you believe that the Chinese government is supporting Rush? But I know fort a fact that the US government is funding and supporting China bashing. When there is outside influence, and political propaganda being pushed, then yes, China not only has a right, but a duty to protect the people from such attacks.

[xtiangodloki]

Alec Ash's piece is indeed excellent. I think this bit best explains the situation with the post 6-4 generation: "It’s not just that they know their futures will be better served in a stable political environment and they have more to lose than previous generations (the obvious point). It’s that the majority has an iron belief in the current administration as working successfully to give them a better life. And it was talking with students on May 4th which made it clear to me the extent to which their priorities have changed from patriotism to individualism."

I personally find it odd that most of the foreign journalists have not wrote much on this angle as a means to explain the apathy of the current generation regarding TAM incident. Instead, most of fthe Western media still love to play the whole "big brother is scaring the Chinese into not talking" bit. Regardless of how the Western media plays the while "freedom" or "democracy" angle, today's Chinese people only need to compare their current living standards with that of 10 or 20 years ago and their minds have already been made up as to what is good for them. Sure, there are plenty of people who think today's China is worse before, but the majority and especially the educated do not think this way.