I watched The Tank Man when it was released in 2006. I found it fascinating then. Coming back to it after these years I was able to view it in a different light and evaluate my thoughts.

All good leaders should know that their ability to lead comes from the consent of those govern. Don’t open fire on your own people, when you do, you transition from a government to a War Lord or a Dictator. The Tank Man showed the Chinese Politburo that they were on the precipice of massive change.

Bruce Herschenshon noted that The Tank Man was the inspiration for the collapse of the Berlin Wall later that year. The Tank Man changed the world. It’s fascinating that he is up there with Hitler and Einstein as one of the 100 most important people of the 20th century. He was one man, but in reality, during those protests, there were millions of The Tank Man (and women and children) 1 in 10 were protesting in Beijing.

It’s amazing see how Tienanmen Square mirrors the protests of Arab spring. When protests in one country spread like pollen in the wind through the Arab world.

The orders are always the same “Clear the Square” and the military or the police . Even in America, whether it’s at Kent State or UC Davis, the military and the police always react the same — The citizens become the enemy and the government forces attack.

I think the Chinese Politburo reacted this way because they didn’t know they were on the worlds stage. They we naive to modern media. They thought they could contain it. And they couldn’t

Why do I think the current youth are pro-government? I think it’s because the government changed. There’s no way the government of 1989 would stand today. I also think that in general, youth don’t know history. With Chinese censorship, they probably don’t know the real story. I can only think of my understanding of the 1960s. I wasn’t alive then and it’s not really talked about today.

In my opinion China has yet to have their worker rebellion, rebelling for worker rights. I view The Tank Man as part of the freedom movement in China. Some time in the future, there will be the worker revolution, demanding good jobs and conditions. It was 150 years from the Revolutionary war until the 1900s. China’s will come faster. It will come during pour lifetime.

There’s even more to this video on PBS website. There’s an online dialog on PBS’s website. There’s also a chat with the producers of this Frontline.

Everyone wanted economic growth in China, both the government and people of China. This is the deal that could be settled on. The government knew that the people wanted more freedoms, so they set up special economic zones that promoted more freedoms to make a vein for accelerated economic growth. The people could either agree to go along with the government’s plan or fight politics. No one wanted more bloodshed and everyone could agree on economic growth. One sided it may have been, the deal to move to the cities for economic opportunities seemed agreeable. Its effects have been in creation of an “A” and “B” society in China as the rural west is being abandoned. It has also created a new middle class with new wealth and freedoms.

The images in the video had much emotional appeal. The image of the tank man had stirred strong emotion around the world. A strong appeal that many activists have their foundations set in when fighting for the human rights of people in China. It is sad that some of the brightest students in the country do not even know what the tank man represents. It is understandable though. The CCP believes ideas from the west will break apart the society, and only a unified society can accomplish economic growth.

I think it’s somewhat silly to ask if China was suppressing pro-democracy protesters or anti-capitalism protestors. Only those opposing the CCP’s absolute power was a threat to the party, I really think the party could care less about the other group.

In short, although Tianamen Square crushed all opposition to both the CCP’s political and economic policies, it is likely that most of China’s economic expansion would have happened if the government was more open as well.

In my opinion, the CCP was crushing protests for both democratic reform and market reform, but definitely more towards the democratic reform side. Market reform isn’t necessarily a bad thing for the Chinese government, but with democratic reform comes a loss of power and control. Modernization was bound to happen anyway, but this reform allowed it to happen faster and at much greater magnitude.

After watching this video, I am a firm believer that China would NOT be where it is today had Ti****n Sq**re not happened. There would have been no grounds for the “deal with the devil” and thus no reason for the government to allow the reform. As for the deal with the devil that was discussed, I believe that the government should have taken responsibility for its actions as well as made way for the reform (based on my Western moral beliefs).

As I always try and spin things around from my point of view, I have to wonder if there is anything our government is keeping from us regarding mistakes that have been made in the past. My gut tells me there isn’t and I know that we are in a nation that has many more democratic freedoms, but those Chinese students may have felt the same way. What (if anything) is being kept secret from us, and what did we gain in return for allowing it to be swept under the rug?

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.