The video and its subsequent response sparked a significant reaction on social media, with numerous users rallying behind Sangwan's statement. However, some others disagreed, asserting that personal opinions should not be shared within classrooms.
sigh the massacres were in side streets, not the square. The students themselves left under the threat of being removed violently once it became clear that the hardline faction in the CCP had won out over the reformists.
Saying things like “Students were massacred on the square” only gives the CCP ammunition for their “see what kind of vile propaganda the west spreads, they’re making shit up” narrative.
It’s a thing that every Chinese knows, that the students weren’t massacred. They were the main force behind the whole thing, it’s not a minor detail. The collective memory, the meaning of the whole thing would be vastly different had they been massacred. It’s more or less a symbol and reminder that you’ll be “invited for a tea” before anything actually bad happens, that shit is oppressive yes but it’s not cultural revolution times where it was nigh impossible to know how you’re even supposed to act, where the limits are. They’re still fuzzy but they’ll be explained to you over a stern cup of tea nowadays.
It may be a small detail from your POV, it isn’t from the Chinese one.
It’s an euphemism, think similar connotations as “offer you can’t refuse”. OTOH might involve actual drinking of drinking-temperature tea, it’s China after all.
The way I read is “The CCP didn’t massacre a bunch of uneducated citizens in Tienanmen square”. Because, you know, the context was “educated people get slaughtered”.
deleted by creator
sigh the massacres were in side streets, not the square. The students themselves left under the threat of being removed violently once it became clear that the hardline faction in the CCP had won out over the reformists.
Saying things like “Students were massacred on the square” only gives the CCP ammunition for their “see what kind of vile propaganda the west spreads, they’re making shit up” narrative.
Why is it an important distinction? Massacre is massacre whether it’s on a square or on side streets.
Because of what I already said. Also even if the CCP wasn’t using that kind of talk for internal propaganda it’s still nice to be accurate, you know?
It just seems like a small detail that wouldn’t actually benefit their propaganda at all.
It’s a thing that every Chinese knows, that the students weren’t massacred. They were the main force behind the whole thing, it’s not a minor detail. The collective memory, the meaning of the whole thing would be vastly different had they been massacred. It’s more or less a symbol and reminder that you’ll be “invited for a tea” before anything actually bad happens, that shit is oppressive yes but it’s not cultural revolution times where it was nigh impossible to know how you’re even supposed to act, where the limits are. They’re still fuzzy but they’ll be explained to you over a stern cup of tea nowadays.
It may be a small detail from your POV, it isn’t from the Chinese one.
“invited for tea”?
It’s an euphemism, think similar connotations as “offer you can’t refuse”. OTOH might involve actual drinking of drinking-temperature tea, it’s China after all.
So it’s a threat?
deleted by creator
The way I read is “The CCP didn’t massacre a bunch of uneducated citizens in Tienanmen square”. Because, you know, the context was “educated people get slaughtered”.