These events enabled the Chinese Government to move forward with far less opposition than if the events had not occurred, thus allowing for the “deal with the devil.” This deal of overlooking political oppression made way for China’s economic miracle. Although the uprising that took place at Tiananman Square struck chords with all facets of the Chinese people, the government nearly erased the events from the memories of China’s youth today. When shown a picture of the iconic image of the “Tank Man,” one student of the University of Beijing responds, “Is this a joke? Did you make that image?” This goes to show that while China has succeeded economically, the government has achieved its goal of suppressing the flow of information and squashing any inclinations to rise up against the state.

As far as the two protesting groups that were present at Tiananman Square, I don’t think the government’s goal at the time was to suppress these groups, however the results of the massacre ended up doing just that. In the end, I believe that Tiananman Square plays a crucial role in China’s history. Although forgotten by its young citizens, the effects of the massacre still resound through China today.

It was shockingly horrible that a government could do such a thing to its own people like turning the lights off at Beijing and running people over with tanks. That’s why I am so amazed that there arn’t more Chinese people that are against their government. In that way, the Chinese government has succeeded in moving away from the Tienanmen Square incident. Even though their are those that suffer from certain policies, I believe that opening up their economic stance was vital because of their huge labor force. Now people could find work in the factories where they would get paid much more than if they remained farming. The question is how long are these people going to tolerate such low wages, hours, and overall lifestyle? As long as the government improves these conditions slowly, I think the workers will remain content. However, the power in China is the cheap labor so the government will need to figure out other ways to improve these workers lives like having them work less hours and have more vacation so that even more people could get employed. One thing I noticed throughout the movie was that at these factories, the food looked really good, which I think is plays a role in keeping workers more content. Watching those parts made me really excited to eat Chinese food in China.

But then again, this is the deal with the devil that this post is referring to. China opened itself up economically — allowing for the new class of millionaires while also taking on the role of the world’s factory — but the caveat here is that it continued to shut itself out politically. This type of reform allowed for many economic positives, but the political and human rights changes have been much slower. I believe that this was a necessary evil for the country to move forward after the events of 1989.

When asking if democracy is the key to China’s problems, the answer is a resounding maybe — if there is such a thing. Democracy is a nice goal, one that can help ensure the rights of many of its citizens, but one that may be too distant to envision for present-day China. These human rights that I speak of and that Tank Man stood for are basic equalities our US constitution protects. Freedoms we whole-heartedly believe in. You do not need democracy to preserve what we believe to be god-given rights, you just need a government that understands the pulse of the people, not one that attempts to muffle its heartbeat.

When the chinese soldiers rode through Tiananmen Square, killing an unknown number in an unnecessary massacre, those soldiers representing the government were not specifically killing a democratic uprising or those in favor of market reform. They were only looking to keep the government in control — in essence to maintain their tenuous grasp on the billion-plus chinese people. If control is all they wanted, their iron-fisted technique was certainly effective. What is shocking is how American companies are profitting to this day off this — with Cisco, Yahoo, and Google the specific companies targeted in the documentary. I guess this sheds light on a new question: Where would China be today without the foreign influence the country so desperately avoids?

I believe that Winston Churchill’s famous quote “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” applies in China. I’m going to assume a loose definition of democratic form of government and not distinguish between a democracy and a republic here. I would not say that the China needs a democracy for short-term economic growth, as we’ve seen 10%+ year-over-year growth under the current government. If the government continues to support an environment for economic growth, does enough to alleviate inequality of China’s standard of living, and continue to convince the Chinese people that its rule is best for them, Chinese people will prefer the current government. However, with an increase in the number of Chinese accessing the internet, political criticism will grow. A challenge for the regime that the film mentions – How do you allow all the information necessary to keep a free market economy running while filtering what contradicts the party line and undermine authority? – will not be easy for the government to resolve.

I think the CCP crushing both student protests – For democratic reform and for slower movement with market reforms - was an attack on democratic reform, rather than an attempt to keep market reforms moving along. Democratic reform was more consistent with the larger protests, and according to the video I gathered that the government was more concerned with their one-party rule than the rate of economic reform.

It’s difficult to say whether China would be where it is today if Tiananmen Square had not happened. It did lead to the political-economic “deal with the devil” , but I don’t know if the Chinese government would have independently come to the conclusion that allowing greater economic freedom would benefit the country and government economically or convince the citizens to view the government more favorably.

The film mentioned that the demonstrators demanded the right to tell the truth. They demonstrated against hardship, government corruption, and repression. This shows a contrast between how the government was viewed by the university students of the 1980s and students today. Life is better today for Chinese students. There is more opportunity today for those with a higher education and funding for higher education has increased. As Ruth Cherrington is quoted in the WSJ article, “They have a lot more economic incentive to stay with the present brand of patriotism.” The government has done a good job in shaping student opinion that freedom of expression can be destabilizing. Students don’t want to risk destabilizing a system that benefits them for a potentially better system.

This video was very insightful into the true events that occurred during this incident. Popular thought is that the people that were protesting were only the students, but the truth is that everyone was protesting except for the top leaders. Students started the protests but soon everyone was involved. It was also shocking that most of the action actually happened outside the square, not inside.

During this event there was completely free reporting; it was referred to as the “virus of freedom”. Once people got a taste of it, they wanted more. This is why the government was so scared. The people got a taste of freedom and know they know what it feels like and what it can do. The government is very insecure, as Susan Shirk writes in her book “China, Fragile Superpower”, and so they took drastic measure to send their message across. Their message was that they are in charge and always will be. Watching this video and seeing how they used their forces against innocent people was absolutely shocking, and that is the feeling they were going for. The Chinese government wanted to “shock, terrify, and awe”. They did this by using weapons that were way beyond what they needed and shooting people in the back while they were running away. The government was embarrassed by their initial retreat; they were insecure. In reaction to that embarrassment, they went overboard. It was called a “true massacre” and a “one-sided pitch battle”.

Some of the commentators discussed China A versus China B; a rural and developing China and a booming, thriving China. This theme was the main topic in Shirk’s book, so I have been fully aware of the fragility that China faces. The tank man is an iconic image of this incident and its an image that has been removed by the government since 1989. This is representative of how the government is still trying to control information within its country. I really enjoyed this video as it gave me good insight into the Chinese history and their worldview.

Even harder to believe is that there is still no resolution over who this person was, and that there has been so much effort put forth in trying to figure it out. At the time of the massacre it seemed more relevant to conceal the identity of this man, but I believe that the Chinese government does know who this man is and what happened to him definitively, and in transitioning into the future they should be more open and honest. At the very least, more Chinese natives should know about the events and the tank man; it was shocking when the young man looked at the ‘tank man’ photo and asked if it was a type of performance art.

I am on the fence about whether the T Square incident was a catalyst or impediment to the economic boom that followed – I feel like other conditions had more of an effect on the economy than this massacre. If anything, I think it showed a low point that the Chinese as a people could only rise above afterwards.

If I were to guess I would say that the People’s army was crushing the students political protest. The party would be more concerned with political reform than economic reform. They can still benefit from economic reform but political reform would mean their end.

I think it is pretty clear that Tienanmen Square changed China forever. The economic reform has transformed the country. It may have occurred eventually but T Square definitely sped up the process. While I think that the economic reform has been great for the country, I believe that this taste of freedom will lead to a greater desire for widespread freedoms and China will continue to evolve.