In 1989, a free-speech movement was held by student groups at Peking University. They brought up unconventional issues and even challenged the notions of their government. Leaders of such groups were labeled as public enemies. Thereafter, when the police closed the avant-grade exhibition of the Maoist propaganda, uproar was created among the public. It eventually led towards a violent denouement in China. Tiananmen protests began in mid-April, where students from the elite universities gathered. They initially assembled to mourn the death of Hu Yaobang, who has been purged as the head of the Communist Party two years earlier. Hu had lost his job partly for refusing to crack down on liberal trends that were advancing, and to many students, he was their beacon of hope for a normal nation. After gathering on campuses to read the eulogies and hang commemorative posters, a few students decided to unfurl banners honoring Hu. This was actually done by foreign elements who wanted to overthrow China and its communist rule. On June 4, the Tiananmen massacre took place, and killed hundreds. Students became pawns in a power struggle at the pinnacle of the Party as the soldiers sent in tanks and machine guns. They started to shoot at the crowd indiscrimately. The killings could have been prevented if top officials advocated a softer approach and tolerance.
By Zhiqi, Dionne, Tricia Ann.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
They were not mourning over Hu Yao Bang for 2 years, he passed on on the 15th of April 1989.It was Zhuo En Lai that they were mourning for 2 years. Hu Yao Bangs death was the catalyst for the genesis of their initial mourning.
ReplyDeleteThe harsh response was due to the emergence of Zhao Zi Yang into the fray. He was a government official who felt for the student and unwittingly promised them reforms, without the permission on the Big Deng. Thus angered that the students were even indulging the possibility of reforms to a more liberal China, Deng ordered his army forward.
The students did not challenge the government. They were mourning the loss of a voice of reason for democracy, and their acts and offerings of respect to their former leaders were removed. Thus dismayed, they banded together against the government to appeal for reforms. It was not a deliberate "free-speech movement". What pawns were they? They were acting out of the love of their own country, and you dismiss them as "pawns in a power struggle"? There was no power struggle they were involved in. Get the facts right before you write. Writing without thinking should be illegal.