this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2025
793 points (97.0% liked)
Memes
47102 readers
841 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Another ironic example of Westerners not understanding what tank man was actually doing: stopping the tanks from leaving Tianmanmen Square. He was doing the opposite of an act of defiance against government involvement; he wanted them to be involved. Also, he left the scene unscathed when other civilians came and scurried him away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq8zFLIftGk
Maybe Western media always show us a cropped version of the tank man photo, with Tianmanmen Square removed, because it doesn’t fit in with their narrative.
[Edit to replace deleted YouTube video.]
Jesus fucking christ. I watched this shit happen. I watched the uncut footage air. That man was fucking pissed. He kept blocking the tanks while absolutely losing his shit screaming at the tank. Neither of us was there so neither of us knows why or what he was screaming but it was most definitely a clear act of defiance. You cannot in any way say that he was asking them to "go back" and "stay involved".
Here is the footage.
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/450068672/video/a-lone-man-stops-a-convoy-of-tanks-during-the-tiananmen-square-protests-in-beijing-1989.mp4?s=mp4-640x640-gi&k=20&c=CCERCYPtGDpeNsNsDmVMA5LAovD-byP0E_f4d1oHzgA%3D
That’s just a shorter version of the video I posted. And I don’t think the full footage ever aired on TV, because it’s around ten or twenty minutes long, mostly of him on top of the tank having a conversation with the crew.
We have reached so many levels of irony that I do not know which one the original meme maker was on.
https://zezvaz.com/about/
I assume he doesn’t know because almost no Westerners seem to.
Probably but the irony adds a layer of comedy. By the way the video you linked above seems to be broken.
Thanks, fixed.
There's a lot of misinformation about this event, which was formally acknowledged by the USA fairly recently. He did leave unharmed, I was surprised to hear anybody thought otherwise. However, you are stretching credulity by claiming he was pro-government. Seeing as he was never located, I can at least concede that neither of us know what he was thinking at the time.
That’s a blank link.
Hah, the video must have been taken down last week. I figured it might eventually be.
Here’s another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq8zFLIftGk
Upon watching the video then reading further, they seem to have left the square to clear nearby streets. Your comment says he wanted them to stay. Therefore you’re saying he wanted them not to continue clearing the area? Or are you saying he wanted them to continue to maintain the square?
He seems to be blocking their exiting the square, so it appears he wanted them to remain in it. I don’t know where the tanks were going. Perhaps back to base, perhaps somewhere else.
Edit to add: Back to base seems most likely, because this was on June 5th, the day after the protests had ended.
I think he was just a weirdo
They cleared the side streets after this. How does blocking equal wanting them to stay? Seems like wanting them to stop.
If they were "clearing side streets" they would have split up
They were clearly leaving
That sounds so strange, how do we expect them to clear entire streets if they can't even get past a single guy armed with grocery bags?
How does not wanting to run a guy over equal an inability to?
Can you explain the relevance?
The video you linked to says that the footage was spliced together from a 2006 documentary aired by PBS, here's a summary
The Incident: On June 5, 1989, a day after the Chinese army violently suppressed pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, an unarmed man, later known as "Tank Man," stood his ground in front of a line of tanks on the Avenue of Eternal Peace.
Iconic Image: Captured by Western journalists, this image became a powerful symbol of defiance and the struggle for freedom worldwide.
Documentary's Focus: The FRONTLINE documentary, "The Tank Man," explores the events surrounding the Tiananmen Square protests, the identity of "Tank Man," and the significance of his act of defiance. Filmmaker's Investigation:
They were not pro-democracy lmfao they were maoists protesting against SWCC
Source: ¯_(ツ)_/¯
At least the other comment had the decency to provide sources for their statements
Martial law remained in effect until it was officially lifted on January 11, 1990. They stayed there and kept harassing people. They didnt leave the city, these tanks were not going home and tankman wasn't trying to keep them there. His source doesn't even say what he says it says.
Wiki
You don’t know where they were going any more than I do. All we know is they were leaving the Square, and he was standing to stop them. We don’t know what conversation he had with the person in the tank (that part of the video was clipped out, presumably for brevity, because it goes on for several minutes).
I will bet anything you never saw images of the 'peaceful protesters' burning busses with people in them, lynching cops, etc... And tanks have no home, they are clearly leaving the square tho. Get over it.
Doesn't this rather ignore the fact that the day before the square was cleared of protestors, resulting in hundreds/thousands of deaths?
Considering that Tank Man was never heard from again after the photo was taken, I don't think you claim to understand his rationale for standing in front of the tank.
We can only assume the reason due to the continued censorship of the photo inside China to this day.
You can see people in the Square in this photo. No one died in the Square, though some people did die elsewhere in the downtown area, but not thousands.
I can’t read his mind, no. But why else might he want to stop tanks from leaving?
It’s not censored inside China, though. Why do you think that it is, other than through our own Cold War propaganda that tells us so?
It literally is censored in China. No one learns about this in school. No one sees this photo. It was a shock to my family to learn about this. Are you Chinese? Have you been to China? I don’t get why your comments seem to want to sow doubt rather than provide answers.
I've talked to Chinese foreign exchange students who learned about it in school
Exchange students, so they said they learned about it in high school or in college? Well both of our comments are anecdotal, based on those we know, so I am not sure. I only know no one I know learned about it, but it could have changed.
I dont know when but within the context of conversations it was before they left China
Uh huh.
Well why don't we ask DeepSeek for more information about it?
Your argument got fully dismantled with evidence and all you have is a bad comeback.
Click the link and check the pictures. Is that a peaceful protest?
I never said it was peaceful, but that doesn't validate State violence.
So you're just going to ignore reality? The fact that you can't look it up on Chinese media? The DeepSeek comment wasn't a bad comeback, it was the evidence you can see with your eyes, man.
When people start burning down tanks you are well past the point of a "protest". This was a full on riot.
Tiannenmen was an American backed color revolution. America trained and funded those rioters and many of their leaders fled to America afterwards.
By the way are you aware that Tank Man did not block the tanks from going to the square, but blocked them from driving away from the square?
I was with you speaking truth about what happened in the square vs. side streets, but now you went off the rails.
The protesters were Dengists. The whole thing started when Hu Yaobang died, making people fear that anti-reformist forces within the party would get the upper hand. They were backing up one faction against the other, predictably, the hardliners wanted to crack down on them just as they wanted to get rid of the reformers. That's why this turned ugly instead of getting resolved in the reformist way, which they were busy doing, having conferences with the protestors.
Absolutely, 110%, Chinese-internal politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yellowbird
Oooooh typewriters. Did they also send pencils? Other things that the protestors could get themselves, or do without? That could have come from other places if the CIA didn't supply them to their moles, to distribute? How many pencils did the protesters use that were not procured through the CIA?
The whole colour revolution thing is a KGB myth. Populations cannot be influenced like that, it's just not how social dynamics work. It's a power fantasy they never managed to implement for themselves, but believe the other side has, because they're that kind of paranoid.
In any case: Yes, the students were Dengists. Is, or is not, Dengism a Chinese political stance. One that wasn't exactly extraordinary in the days, and still the foundation of much current policy. Did the CIA come up with the modern stance of the CCP or something or what do you want to imply.
You are basically denying the CIA exists. To which I counter: "The CIA exists."
I acknowledge the CIA exists. What I deny is it being all-powerful. The CIA is not god, it cannot achieve aphysical results. I hope that's not controversial.
Yes, the CIA proved that by failing this color revolution. The populace did not fall for the CIA playbook and there was no massive civil war. Only a small riot. Keep in mind this is nothing like the Kent State massacare where the American police actually massacared peaceful unarmed protesters. These Tiannenmen rioters burned army officers alive.
...which is not the same people as were on the square. Those were Peking locals, not students, barricading the side streets so the army could not get to the square, while (other) Peking locals had previously informed the army that the people on the square weren't counter-revolutionary insurgents but their sons and daughters, good Dengists, because the hardliners in the party had conveniently omitted that part from the marching orders. You can find lots of pictures of people handing bowls of noodles to soldiers in tanks, those are of that. The army had its orders, though, pushed through the barricades, that's where the casualties occurred, arrived at the square, then told the protesters to GTFO or else, orders from above. The protesters chose GTFO, hence no massacre on the square. Don't expect me to side with the hardliners giving those marching orders, they were not the ones saving the day, the Peking noodle brigade was. And I'd actually expect even lemmygrad to not side with them either because their views do not represent current CCP positions. Like, for one, private enterprises exist in China, the hardliners wanted none of that.
Also I have no idea why you're going on about a massacre in the US right now. They're having one at least once every fortnight, business as usual. Did you mistake me for a Yank? Whataboutism looks really silly if you don't take proper aim.
Well I guess we'll have to rewrite all of the wikipedia pages.
Perhaps we can invite someone from China to do so. Tell me, are the tank drivers available?
Oh, we should also have System of a Down rewrite their song - can't believe they got it wrong, silly band
Lol, not the shitlib Holy Scripture! Surely it never gets rewritten!
On the one hand you have been presented video and photographic evidence that there were armed riots and the army had their tanks burned down by these so called "protesters". There is no need to ask a Chinese person, not like you would believe them.
On the other hand, you present System Of A Down and Wikipedia which is notoriously Western biased when it comes to political subjects and straight up contradicts what we see in the images and videos.
Woe me which will I believe. The evidence of my eyes and ears or wikipedia.org?
Right? If ten thousand Chinese people came up to them to tell them they'd just say, of course, they're brainwashed see see pee bots, else they'd uncritically believe western media
True
State violence should not be validated
A recent mainstream example would be the Jan 6 protests in USAmerica. The protest about concerns regarding the legitamacy of the USA's elections was maligned as domestic terrorism and a coup-attempt by some, right?
A protestor got fatally shot and killed by the state appartus.
CW: Suicide
4 police officers involved who were involved in the suppression took their own lives too. Likely due to strain they faced from the state appartus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Whether peaceful protests are allowed is a basic litmus for any modern democracy. All these incidents show how democratic checks and balances are required to discourage the violent arm of the state.
Would this be an example of how it could be seen in different pov's?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5__ESiklA1A
I do oppose state violence, but I doubt Western narratives too.