The 1989 Tian'anmen Square riots (天安门事件) were a CIA-backed attempt at a color revolution against the People's Republic of China in 1989. Reservations over Deng Xiaoping's reform and opening up policies sparked peaceful protests, which the CPC negotiated with, but soon a foreign-funded faction of students joined the protests and, due to their promotion by Western media, took over the protests and took them in an entirely different direction than what was originally envisioned.

[…]

As the protests were winding down and many protestors went home, the Chinese government sent unarmed PLA troops the clear the square of remaining protestors as the Beijing police was overwhelmed due to their sheer numbers throughout the city. On June 2, rioters burned and lynched unarmed soldiers trying to enter the square. The troops were initially unarmed, but were given weapons on June 3 after the students took some soldiers hostage. They were blocked from entering the square by crowds armed with petrol bombs, iron clubs, and Molotov cocktails. The rioters destroyed over 400 vehicles and destroyed a convoy of over 100 vehicles in western Beijing.

[…]

The riots in Beijing resulted in approximately 300 total deaths, including 36 students, 10 PLA soldiers, and 13 police officers. All of the deaths occurred outside of the square itself.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Imagine being retarded enough to actually believe such lazy propaganda. Tankies really are desperate enough to believe anything to validate their shitty failed ideology.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Honestly, I read the above article a few months ago, and I think it is a genuinely good article that I would recommend others read. It was written nine years after Tiananmen by Jay Mathews of the Washington Post, who was in Beijing during the protests; and the Columbia Journalism Review is a respected publication written by and for professional journalists. So the article is basically just trying to disspell the dumbing down and memeifying and misremembering and making-into-propaganda that happened with Tiananmen, and which honestly tends to happen with any major loss of life. No conspiracy theories, no denialism or claiming that "they had it coming", just dispelling misconceptions. It's good stuff.

I can't speak for Davel's other comment citing Prolewiki, though — I'm pretty skeptical to any website that tries to be Wikipedia but for X ideology.

In any case, this "butthurt report" feels pretty unfair, although I honestly did kinda roll my eyes at how Davel's comment said "6 out of 7 ain't bad", that was kinda cringe... But basically, what I'm trying to say is that I wouldn't fault someone for commenting under a "9/11 NEVER FORGET" post about the extent to which mismanagement and confusion contributed to the death toll of that, and likewise I wouldn't fault someone for commenting under a Tiananmen Square post with more nuance about that event.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It’s not unreasonable to have skepticism of ProleWiki.

You might think Wikipedia lacks ideology or bias, but in my opinion it tends to have a Global North/Atlanticist bias. This is probably because of the place of its birth and the people who created it, like American libertarian Jimmy Wales, and the people who have managed it, like Katherine Maher, who has worked for National Democratic Institute and the Atlantic Council, and currently works for the U.S. State Dept.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And obviously the English language Wikipedia is generally going to have an anglo-Atlanticist point of view, as virtually all L1 English speakers and ~~most~~ many L2 English speakers do.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

Honestly, I absolutely already believe that Wikipedia can be highly biased in those ways. The problem is really just with the liberal shaitan who whispers kapitalist propaganda into my ears. I should know better.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

It's silly to trust the testimony of a single journalist over the dozens of other journalists who were there. His conflicting report is the minority and for a reason. I'm not saying he's lying, but it seems disingenuous to seek out anything that goes against the consensus. The evidence and the testimonies clearly point towards a government ordered massacre of civilians. If nothing happened like tankies claim, then the Chinese government would go to the extreme lengths that it does to deny the existence of the event entirely.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

My fellow American, no u.