We need to gather information.
We need to analyze information in order to make informed decisions.
There are so many talking points for discussion.
Take for instance, an historical event on the other side of the world. It happened in Beijing, China, at Tiananmen Square, June 4, 1989. What did happen at Tiananmen Square?
Maybe it was something like the incident at Kent State University in Ohio, May 4, 1970. Or perhaps will be seen one day as a "Lexington and Concord" of China. The "massacre"-- or whatever it was-- might be compared to the "Prague Spring" in Czechoslavakia, 1968. Or maybe not.
Since I'm headed for Beijing this summer, I was wondering about it. So I've done some research (mostly about China in general.) Being an American, with ample opportunity to make inquiries, I decided to do a little digging online to gather some info about the sorrowful incident. A million or more citizens confronted the People's Liberation Army of China; it had a bad ending. Many Chinese citizens were killed. Was it a massacre?
I found an informative source online; it's a blog by Mark Anthony Jones. I'm linking it to you because it's a good example of the way information should be delivered online; it also enables a very productive discussion among informed people about the complex issues that culminated in bloodshed on that tragic day.
Here's a preview: The blogger, MAJ, raises the question of whether a "massacre" took place at Tiananmen-- or was the incident perhaps a battle between political factions?--a battle in which the army had attempted to intervene.
Students had begun assembling at the ancient gathering spot to draw attention to their political grievances, following the death of Hu Yaobang on April 15. Their complaints mainly addressed corruption and unethical practices in the Communist party and the national government.
The copious documentation (in 69 footnoted references) presented by Mark Anthony Jones indicates that the motivations and strategies of the student movement are essentially an extension of the CPC (Communist party) way of doing things. The "democratic" aspect of the protest might have been a western-media slant on what happened. Those young intellectuals, becoming more militant as thousands gathered and filth accumulated, may have found their ideological foundation in the so-called "Cultural Revolution" of the 1960s--rather than in what we westerners think of as the "march of democracy."
By May 18th,1989, their zealous ranks had been joined by the Workers' Autonomous Federation, a labor movement. But the swelling coalition of youthful, Maoist intelligencia with the hastily-assembled horde of workers proved to be a kind of shotgun wedding; ultimately it blew up in their faces.
The cauldron of disaster might have erupted something like this: Student leaders, present from the inception, held a tight agenda. The workers--more likely the democratic element of the hastily-assembled coalition--had different ideas. Reports (as considered in MAJ's analysis) suggest that the burgeoning ranks of laborers were not given free access to organizational leadership. They may have even been denied entrance to Tiananmen Square itself by the control-freak students.
The situation spun out of control, nd produced a gargantuan accumulation of garbage and human excrement, and threatened domestic tranquility. What would you do if you were Deng Xiaoping? If you're interested, read more about it on the May 8 posting of Mr. Jones' excellent blog:
Scroll down to the May 8 posting. The blog and its subsequent discussion--not the events described therein--is a good example of how citizen journalism should work on the internet. Thomas Jefferson wrote long ago that an informed citizenry is essential in a democracy. This exchange of information and constructive opinion is what allows freedom to happen in our widening (or shrinking?) world in the 21st century.
Carey Rowland, author of Glass half-Full
No comments:
Post a Comment