The other thing that I really like about this video is that it talked about the effect this event had on many different people, and the events that lead up to the tank man’s actions. I had no idea what had happened there before the incident, and how people were shot in the back as they ran away from the soldiers. The entire event is extremely sad, and yet some good came from it. The tank man’s actions inspired people around the globe. It’s just sad that the censorship of the Chinese government prevents China’s own citizens from knowing about the historic event. Hopefully someday they will be able to appreciate it the way that we do.

It’s just such an incredible event in history. Just think what would have happened if someone had flushed the toilet that the film was hidden in.

The fact that a scene like that at Tiananmen Square can be essentially erased for all future generations shows the power of the Chinese government. It seems they are masters at providing the best view of any event and not surprising was the discussion of the false by-line by John Passmore, an addition to give the article authenticity.

The Chinese government is very concerned with perception and their stronghold on the media and the people’s access to media seems impenetrable. My belief in the responsibility held by companies such as Google and Yahoo remains the same. They have to decide for themselves if they are willing to trade support of oppression for profits. Do they consider themselves to be compromising their integrity by providing user information and cooperating with the censorship of information? The only reason they have to comply with the Chinese rules is in order to do business in China, and each company has to make that judgment for themselves.

I just can’t see a country so full of success be constrained by a government that can intern somebody for sending an email. Human nature and freedom, I hope will reign supreme. Maybe I am wrong and for now it seems like nothing is going to change in the near future.

Interference from non-invested parties can derail this process. We are part of the non or marginally-invested group whose shouted opinions upset the dialogue between the Chinese government and its people. I applaud our efforts to garner greater understanding. Yet, we will always speak freely with little care for the impact of our words. We simply have little to gain/lose from changes in the their situation.

The title given to the post-Tienanmen agreement by PBS crystallizes the problem with opinion without investment. What impact does “Deal with the Devil” have when translated for Chinese viewers? We can’t even imagine.

It’s amazing to see what positive things were able to happen to China after the tragedy. It is amazing that China was able to come out and start is economic revolution, yes china still needs to improve much, but I believe that sadly they are much better off staying as the communist political type that they are. This type of system allows for rapid growth with little red tape. One example of this is simply to look at the differences between modern day China and India. India in comparison has made huge leaps and bounds for its people economically, but not necessarily because of it, but instead in spite of it. Because of the red tape caused by this its development has been rather slow in comparison. China on the other hand has been able to attain amazing increases in all of the economy. It does however have a long tumultuous path to becoming a full capitalist and even democratic society. It seems a long way away, but at the same time almost a certain future if it keeps going down the same path it is now. and as reiterated in most of the posts on this side still long way to go, still much better than could be or was. The “Tank Man” was truly in inspiration of the human spirit and will serve as an example that “Human freedom courage dignity will stay and prevail”

Then more touching moments came when the people convinced army troops to withdraw - they fed them, spoke to them calling them brothers and uncles. The people (not speaking of the soldiers) on that day showed true love and compassion for one another.

Following the Beijing Massacre that occurred as a charge by the government leaders, Deng changed the government’s focus to economics but still there can be no opposition to their rule.

The two China’s - rural and metropolitan areas. The rural people do not get the same basic needs or opportunities as the metropolitan people. Further, as in the Billion of Entrepreneurs and in the video, China limits the movement of the rural migrant workers to the city - only the worker (no dependents) can move there in certain residential areas. Therefore, many rural Chinese citizens (matter of fact) cannot make the same wages that their metropolitan counterparts can.

What I find strange is that agriculture is the lowest on many countries’ list of priority - including India and China. Many farmers struggle to make ends meet, and yet without them the rest of us would not survive.

For the migrants working in the city plants, the problem I see with working 12-13 hours a day without a day off is the long-term effects on these people. They choose young people who can work these hours, and then while still young by our standards those people will not be able to work due to illness and tiredness. A couple of chinese people (no longer in China) said that the workers do not have rights and often work in unsafe conditions. The unsafe conditions result from long hours, no PPE (personal protection equipment) and not enough emission control devices used.

School and healthcare is not free, and the rural people cannot afford these basic needs. The money these migrants workers goes towards school for their siblings and does not cover anymore - what?!; and sometimes the workers are not paid until the end of the year or at all. The issue I see is that China’s government has the power to make changes. I am sure the products would still be less pricey even if the wages went up. The US businesses need to make the right decisions when they go over there.

No need to worry Dr. Carr, my goal in visiting China is to understand MNEs and how businesses are run because much of the global economy is in China and India. I truly respect hard working people.

As for the tank man, I do believe his simple gesture changed history for China. By simple, I do not mean that standing in front of a long line of tanks is an easy task, however, there was no part of his display that exhibited violence. The events of Tiananmen Square are beyond tragic, but have produced results that will hopefully continue to change China.

At the moment, the political change still seems to be on hold. Hopefully the influence from foreign countries doing business in China will continue to influence the government. I am not saying that our way is the right way and therefore China should implement democracy, but I do think that China will continue to prosper the more they move away from the old ways of the government.

When I wrote my original essay, I argued that Google and Microsoft had a responsibility to portray the truth as accurately as possible, and that they were failing at it by acquiescing to the Chinese requirement for censorship. Now that I’ve watched this video, I can see why they felt immense pressure to be over there (as most members of industry do), and the devastating consequences of them not conforming to the Chinese M.O.; however, that doesn’t change my original opinion. It might be idealistic to think that one or two US companies can make a difference in a country with an unstoppable economic and political might, but then again…there was only one tank man.

As to who the crackdown was directed towards, it’s difficult to say. From the video, it appeared that the military was responding to reporters who wanted to be free to “print the truth” and other people who wanted a voice in the government; that’s why it struck me as so strange when the concession from the Chinese government was an economic one. The riots in 1989 caused the Chinese government to lose face, thus inhibiting reporting the aftermath of the situation. If the crackdown had been aimed purely at people protesting the economy, I think that there would have been a lot more celebration when the government opened up the country to trade, and there would have been acknowledgments that the protest had been successful in the Chinese media. Because that did not happen, it leads me to believe that the crackdown was aimed more at pro-democracy demonstrators, which matches up with opening of the economic door and keeping the political door shut.

If the “Ti**anm** Sq*#r^” incident had not occurred, specifically the incident with “Tank Man,” I believe that many people world-wide would not have been emboldened by his example to throw off the shackles of communism. Economic reform might have still come, but it would probably have taken a little longer. The “Tank Man” was an icon not just for a generation, but for the courage of the individual.