My reply is that yes, it was a top-down mistake, government policy was a major factor compounding the famine (the CPC even admits it) and nothing like that has happened in the many decades since, demonstrating the ability of the government and the broader movement to learn from mistakes and avoid repeating them. As some other replies pointed out, their history of regular famines has stopped entirely since the Three Year Great Famine, so they have clearly learned, improved and overcome a major hunger issue in a country with huge food demands.
Funny how reddit libs will just downvote this comment asking for sources but not dare engage with it.
It’s an intellectually honest question. Can anyone actually provide a source that China does not discuss the events surrounding the square? Or do they just assume it’s true and have never actually looked to confirm that claim themselves?
Since they’re banned we can’t see the comments from inside the 'grad (and they can’t see yours since you’re apparently banned from .world). He edited in an encyclopedia article, with no sources:
Funny how they come out in droves to downvote in general. Always good for a laugh. They sometimes downvote the most neutral comments as well. Makes me wonder if they have a mccarthyite list of “known communists” or something and are instructed to downvote on sight.
How Chinese describe it: Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe described the Tiananmen protests as “political turmoil that the central government needed to quell.”
“The government was decisive in stopping the turbulence, that was the correct policy,” he said.
My reply is that yes, it was a top-down mistake, government policy was a major factor compounding the famine (the CPC even admits it) and nothing like that has happened in the many decades since, demonstrating the ability of the government and the broader movement to learn from mistakes and avoid repeating them. As some other replies pointed out, their history of regular famines has stopped entirely since the Three Year Great Famine, so they have clearly learned, improved and overcome a major hunger issue in a country with huge food demands.
What about certain square? Will the government ever admit it?
Nisour square? I think the U$ is glad it happened.
Tiananmen Square.
Thanks for clarifying.
Can you share your source that China does not discuss the events surrounding the square?
I’d love to see your source on what happened there as well.
Funny how reddit libs will just downvote this comment asking for sources but not dare engage with it.
It’s an intellectually honest question. Can anyone actually provide a source that China does not discuss the events surrounding the square? Or do they just assume it’s true and have never actually looked to confirm that claim themselves?
Since they’re banned we can’t see the comments from inside the 'grad (and they can’t see yours since you’re apparently banned from .world). He edited in an encyclopedia article, with no sources:
Funny how they come out in droves to downvote in general. Always good for a laugh. They sometimes downvote the most neutral comments as well. Makes me wonder if they have a mccarthyite list of “known communists” or something and are instructed to downvote on sight.
BWA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Edit: source for what happened: https://www.britannica.com/event/Tiananmen-Square-incident
How Chinese describe it: Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe described the Tiananmen protests as “political turmoil that the central government needed to quell.”
“The government was decisive in stopping the turbulence, that was the correct policy,” he said.
You’re right, it’s pretty funny to see you get banned
Fuck off, cracker
* You got banned so I can’t respond to your comment asking for a source. It’s pretty funny, though. My source is that you typed “bwahaha”
@brimnac, since you’re banned from the 'grad (good), I can’t interact with you. I can see your responses if I dip into lemmy.world.
An encyclopedia article is not a primary source.
An encyclopedia article without any actual links to sources or references may as well be a work of fiction.
That’s not a fucking source and you’re still a cracker.