20 Years ago...
 

...the PRC was definatly a Red China.
For all those who died, who had hoped for reform.

http://mappingthefuture.csis.org/tiananmen.jpg

Yet it looks like the struggle for reform continues to this day.
Detained in Macau
Police close square overnight to bar protest, remain to deter.

http://ncb3964.k12.sd.us/year/pics/t...n%20square.gif

But modern technology helps to spread the word.

Yep, a shame that the Government still refuses to even talk about it.:nope:

Well, at least the Chinese Reds are nicer than the Soviets. If he was a Soviet expatriate, they'd welcome him with open arms, right before shipping him to the Lubiyanka and slapping him with a quarter in the Gulag.
That is, assuming they didn't just shoot him.

You are aware that maybe up to 2600 people died during the protests back then?

I was speaking to a professor in a Chinese university a while ago. He thought
that the Chinese economic success was slowing down or even reversing the
little progress that was being made in government reform as it made it easier
to cover the cracks in the system.

Apparently any intellectually freedom in the humanities departments all but
vanished after Tienanmen and has not come back.

Oh yes, I know and it is a terrible thing. And before that there was Mao's Red Guards and the cultural revolution, another event with a heavy human toll.
But when it comes to mass murders, human rights abuses, and general maltreatment of one's own populace, nobody beats the Stalinists. Not even the Nazis.
At least the Chinese were nice enough to wait for students to protest before killing them. Soviet academia was afforded no such luxury, and joined tens of millions in the Gulag, where they pretty much all died of exposure or starvation or being worked to death. The lucky hundreds of thousands were just shot, or hanged.

It is not my intent to trivialize Tianamen Square in any way, I'm just saying that when it comes to Communism, it could be a lot worse.

I'm not so sure such things can be treated as relative.
It does not make much sense to me to say that one massacre is worse than
any other massacre aside from academic interest.

Off the top of my head, I can think of about 6 million people who might take exception to that line of reasoning.:DL

If you treat such events as relative then you end up with conclusions such as
"It is better to have 1 million people massacred than it is to have 2 million
people massacred".
I don't like that line of reasoning. It's crazy to tell one victim that he is better
off than another victim because his massacre wasn't as bad as another.

I struggle to find better words.

Letum,

the 1 million versus 2 million thing is a mathematical question. Of course it is better to have just 1 million killed than it is to have 2 million killed. Questioning that would be insane.

For the one being dead, it does not matter if he was part of the 1 million or the 2 million scenario.

Keep both questions separate. It does not help - and does not make sense - to mix them. Thus your confusion.

Compared to 20 years ago, thing shave improve din China, if comparing over those 20 years, there is change. The thing is there is not as much change as some in the West hoped for, or demand to be. But change there is nevertheless, while many things also stayed the same, granted. But still, all in all, things have become different a bit, compared to 20 years ago.

I am unable to see how the massacre of one million is better than the massacre
of two million. From whose point of view is it better? Who loses out more from
one as opposed to the other?

If we are talking about either-or events, then it is better the lesser event
from the point of view of the potential survivors of the lesser event, but the
same does not apply for events that have taken place already.

From the point of view of those one million who could be dead, but are not.

Don't make this complicated again. Putting things into relation is all nice and well, but sometimes you are crucifying yourself with it.

One million dead - or alive: that is what is the difference. If you cannot see that, then help you God, for man cannot. ;) :)

Please excuse the edit, I posted and then found better words.

To keep things short "A" refers to a lesser massacre than "B".

You are making the mistake of confusing either-or events with
simultaneous, fixed events.

In the either-or case, there are indeed people that survive event A, but
would have not survived event B, had B taken place. From their point of
view it is indeed better that A happened (and not B).
However, if both A and B have occurred simultaneously and
interdependently, then it does not make sense to say there are survivors of
A who would have not survived if B had taken place. in this scenario there
are survivors of A who would not have survived if B had taken place twice,
but that is another either-or scenario.

This can be demonstrated by the way that members of the "those [..] who
could be dead" group do not always exist.

For example:
Say there is a country of 1 million inhabitants, "Country A", and a country
of 10 million inhabitants, "Country B".

In each country there is a massacre. In country A 100% of the population
is wiped out (1 million). In country B 20% is killed (2 million).

If you want to say that the events in country A where less bad, then it
can't be from the point of view of "those one million who could be dead"
because such a group does not exist.

It is a little nuanced, but not that complicated.

That's all nice and well, Letum, and it is very theoretical and abstract and intellectual and philosophically disconnected from reality.

A massacre where 2 million get killed, still sees twice as many people killed, as one with 1 million killed. Stop philosopphy to create an altwernative universe. Use some math to deal with the one you're in. And that is a place where an event that sees 2 million killed sees twice as many people being killed than a killing that results in the killing of 1 million. I wonder what is so difficult in seeing that.

Sometimes your mindgames really seem to catapult you directly into an orbit not around just planet Earth but around all the solar system. Try to keep at least one foot on the ground.

I must say I totally and completely fail to see anything relevant in your attempt to explain what you're after. I must even say that the attempt is most absurd, and - as I already said - disconnected from reality. If at least you woudl argue quality versus quantity aspects. With that I could at least sympathize, and to some degree maybe even agree.

If i would follow your thinking, then I would need to conclude that it does not matter if in WWII 6 million people died, 6 thousand died, or 60 million died. And if 4 billion people would have died, then it would matter even less, since there wouldn't be a group of survivors from homo sapiens anyway.

Sorry, but you completely lost me. I can just roll my eyes.

Gaaah! There you go again with another either-or example!

If it was a case of either 'x' people dieing or 'y' people dieing, then clearly
the lesser is the better as then it is better for the people who have survived.
Alternatively, if both x and y people have died in two independent events of
different or equal magnitude then the severity in terms of the badness of
each event is no different from the point of view of any possible person.

I don't see how this is "disconnected from reality". It is very, very,
relevant.