This piece is a sobering reminder that reality does not always serve cookie-cutter morality and ideology. The sense of an indeterminateness or tentativeness in the tone underscores an honest humility on the part of the author that is refreshing and endearing.

A few further comments re the students' and Beijing residents ' (for June-4 was about them as much as the students, a fact that Western media mostly missed) "imperfection", not necessarily contradicting the author's observations:

1. Crimes vs. misdemeaners. The worst excesses of the demonstrators could not even remotely justify the use of lethal force. The arrogance and other hubris of the students, including the in-born corruption and juvenile machinations of some of their leaders, are at most misdemeanors. Even rubber bullets would have been excessive, let alone AKs, tanks and anti-aircraft guns. A CRIME is a CRIME is a CRIME.

2. The more mundane goals and ideas of the demonstrators, as opposed to the fictionalized "pro-democracy motives", have not made them less noble, but arguably more so. After decades of misrule by former revolutionaries, many Chinese were then, and are now, deeply ambivalent towards even the loftiest abstractions. The fact that the demonstrators opposed to a broad range of specific injustices and injuries, instead of "the System", and were willing to put themselves at great risk and inconvenience and ultimately even get themselves killed for that private, personal opposition, should perhaps augment our respect rather than diminish it. The absence of a coherent "pro-democracy" slogan does not negate the lively presence of an authentic democratic spirit.

PS: my own personal opposition that motivated me to spend 11 uncomfortable days on the Square was the official appointment, rather than popular election, of student reps in People's Congress, a common practice on Chinese campuses to this day.

3. The greatest lasting aftermath of the June-4 crackdown was the shooting-death of idealism in Chinese society. Deng's much applauded 1991 tour of Canton may have re-started the economy ("it's glorious---and safe--- to make money now"), but combined with the crackdown two years before ("political advocacy is hazardous to your health"), re-directed the attention of the populace, and dealt a crashing blow to the cultural rennaissance that led up to the April of 1989.

Not sure what Kynge meant in the closing sentence, "until events, such as the riots in Tibet last year, bring it surging forth, reminding us how far apart we are. " I suppose he's referring to Richard Spencer ("A balloon, sheep and protests in Tibet") and James Miles's alternative explanation of the the origin of the riots (or, "uprisings", as Dr. Mirsky would prefer)?

Ironically, "Chinese people are generally more suspicious of foreigners now than they were in 1989" because they have more access to information about the Western society now.

[Snipped. Please don't spam duplicate comments into multiple threads. --JM]

Orpheus, excellent comment.

I think most serious media have already tried to set the record straight that this was not about demanding Western-style democracy for China, and that the students were not saints. But myths are very hard to bust. Most people still believe Al Gore said he invented the Internet although he never did, because once reported as truth these notions become ingrained. So too do most believe the demonstrations were a rejection of the Chinese government and a call for democracy. Where I disagree with Kynge is his argument that "pro-democracy" is a wrong descriptor. He lists the elements that the students were protesting: corruption, nepotism, censorship, brutality, human rights abuses, economic hardship and inequities of all sorts. Putting all of these under one umbrella is difficult to do, and I would say "pro-democracy" is about as good an umbrella as we can come up with, imperfect though it may be, The on misinterpretation that this meant Western, and more specifically American democracy is the problem. But pro-democracy seems to me a reasonable and accurate description. The people wanted a say, a voice, to demand accountability and adherence to law and an end to the inequalities of nepotism and corruption. To me these all sound like elements of democracy.

So let me get this straight - the students were not even demanding western style democracy, they were just opposing corruption and deviation from ideals, and they were still massacred. How does that make it it less condemnable?

I don't think Mr Kynge wanted to play the atrocity down. He's quite clear about it at the beginning of his article. But he might help to spin a Beijing narrative, similar to this one (which would hardly qualify for the hall of fame for journalism).

One correction of my choice of words: I used the word, like a number of other commentators, "IDEALISM", in my observation above, "The greatest lasting aftermath of the June-4 crackdown was the shooting-death of idealism in Chinese society".

I'd like to change the word to "ROMANTICISM", as opposed to the prevalent pragmatism. I think it is more accurate.

For IDEALISM implies a set of social ideals or at least specific political ideas as the basis of the person's overall approach to reality (an idealist would usually hold that "the ultimate nature of reality is based on mind or ideas"). That's perhaps not sufficiently true of the June-4 demonstrators to be nominally representative of even a weak majority of them. However, what most of the participants shared in common was an attitude or stance of justified protest and discontent towards the "rational " status quo. By "rational", I am alluding to Hegel's context: "What is rational is actual and what is actual is rational." ("Was vernünftig ist, das ist wirklich; und was wirklich ist, das ist vernünftig.") BTW: this is perhaps THE best-known Hegelian quote, and perhaps among the best known philosophical observation of all times, in China.
Hegel also said, in a variation of the above, "Only in the state does man have a rational existence". As opposed to such, doesn't romanticism make sense?

If we give some credit to Baudelaire, the romanticism "is precisely situated neither in choice of subject nor exact truth, but in the way of feeling". Feeling, indeed.

But, to paraphrase Shakespeare, romanticism is the stuff great idealism is made of. So "tread softly, for you tread on my dreams" (Yeats).