By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Chinese authorities intensified efforts to erase the memory of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown, preventing victims’ families from visiting cemeteries and stepping up security in Hong Kong, where an annual vigil was effectively banned. International criticism, including statements from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, condemned the censorship, while Chinese officials dismissed these remarks as interference. Despite the suppression, activists and organizations like Tiananmen Mothers continued to appeal for justice and remembrance.
Read the original article here
The Chinese authorities are once again making it abundantly clear that the past is not a set of events to be learned from, but rather a liability to be buried. As the 37th anniversary of the Tiananmen crackdown approaches, families of those who were killed are being warned by police not to visit the graves of their loved ones. This chilling directive underscores the government’s enduring sensitivity, or rather, extreme fragility, when it comes to commemorating the events of June 4th, a date that is now more widely recognized than the location itself, Tiananmen Square. The parallels drawn are stark and unsettling: imagine a significant national tragedy, akin to 9/11, but instead of remembering, the official narrative is that it never happened, and any attempt to acknowledge it is met with suppression.
It’s rather astonishing how authoritarian regimes consistently demonstrate such a desperate need to control narratives, even to the point of actively preventing grieving families from honoring their dead. The act of mourning itself, the simple human need to remember and grieve, appears to be perceived as a threat by the current administration, or perhaps by the legacy it’s trying so hard to sanitize. The warning against visiting graves, even after 37 years, highlights a profound insecurity. It suggests that the grief itself, the lingering memory held by individuals and families, is more potent and dangerous than any protest or dissent. It’s a testament to how deeply ingrained the desire to forget is within the government’s strategy of maintaining control.
The government’s approach to the anniversary, by actively prohibiting visits to graves, ironically draws more attention to the very event they wish to erase. It’s a peculiar form of acknowledgment; they refuse to recognize the massacre, yet they acknowledge the anniversary by actively trying to prevent any observance. The act of sending police to deter families from visiting graves on this particular date only serves to reinforce the significance of the event, rather than diminish it. It’s as if they are saying, “Nothing happened, so there’s nothing to see or remember,” while simultaneously deploying resources to ensure that people don’t remember or see anything.
This persistent effort to silence and suppress is indicative of a deep-seated fear of acknowledging wrongdoing. It’s reminiscent of a child who, after making a mistake, tries to hide the evidence and deny any involvement. The “ex-communist” tradition of sweeping inconvenient truths under the rug is on full display. The authorities seem to believe that by simply erasing the past, they can absolve themselves of responsibility. However, the global community, and certainly those with access to information, are unlikely to forget that protestors seeking a voice in their lives were brutally suppressed. The idea of the “consent of the governed” feels like a distant concept when such heavy-handed tactics are employed against one’s own citizens.
The effectiveness of this censorship in truly erasing the past is questionable, especially for those outside of China who have access to information. While the government might succeed in creating a form of collective amnesia among younger generations within the country, older generations still remember. The suppression of historical events like the Tiananmen crackdown raises concerns about a broader pattern of narrative control. This is not just about what happened in Tiananmen; it’s about the ongoing struggle to control historical memory and public discourse. The government’s actions suggest a desire to rewrite history, not merely to acknowledge it.
It’s also noteworthy that the government’s actions are often framed as maintaining stability and order in a conservative society. Some argue that the government’s power is seen as necessary to prevent disruptions, and this perspective is deeply ingrained in the Chinese mindset, much like how some in the West might react to disruptive protests. However, the comparison between a country machine-gunning its own citizens and other forms of international conflict or protest often misses the core issue: the deliberate, systematic use of state violence against peaceful civilian protestors. The attempt to equate these disparate situations often feels like a deflection from the specific human rights abuses that occurred.
Ultimately, the authorities’ efforts to prevent families from mourning at graves on the 37th anniversary of the Tiananmen crackdown speak volumes about the authoritarian government’s brittle authority. It’s a desperate attempt to control not just the present, but also the collective memory of the past. The very act of warning families away from graves, of attempting to silence grief, is a powerful admission of guilt and a stark reminder of the human cost of the suppression that occurred. The government’s imperial need for control, born out of fear, is evident in its constant effort to break, leak, and ultimately, to oppress. The authority they project is often a mask for a deep-seated insecurity.