The editorial denounces the board as “denial of the Tiananmen Massacre,” yet a closer look at the exhibition board will reveal that we have never denied what happened on Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989. The editorial accused CAO of taking the “official Chinese government line,” but all the articles cited on the board are exclusively from Western media. One piece, written in 1989, is from BBC. It is a direct accusation of the violent acts that took place in Beijing that night during the massacre. Another article, from The Columbia Journalism Review, written in 1998, aims to critically review the Western media reports on the 1989 massacre. Titled “The Myth of Tiananmen and the Price of a Passive Press,” this latter source examines media response to the massacre and concludes that “as far as can be determined from the available evidence, no one died that night in Tiananmen Square.”
It is important to note, however, that the author’s conclusion might not be true. By putting up the above quotes, we simply wanted to bring to attention that there are many facts about the event that are still under debate. The key question, of course, is the motive behind the inquiry. The question “Tiananmen Square Massacre?” was meant, on our part, not as a rhetorical one, but rather as an intellectual challenge to all of us who are part of this academic community. Our view is similar to the general view of the campus regarding the event. We start from the assumption that the student body at Amherst, like us, regards June 4, 1989 as one of the greatest atrocities any government has brought upon its people. Yet we feel that since two decades have transpired since the event, it is critical for an intellectual community like ours, to probe into the details of this event with an analytical attitude, rather than only responding with sentiments. Passion is good, yet lessons from history are better learned with a critical mind. By inquiring about whether people died in Tiananmen Square, we would be in a better position to analyze how the decisions unfold on both the civilian side as well as the government side.
We deeply regret that the inquiry was read as a “denial” and the motivation of our exhibition as an attempt “to paint the nation in rose-tinted colors to the College campus.” Yet we understand that such a misrepresentation might stem from a lack of awareness about and exposure to CAO’s consistent effort to pursue its mission, namely promoting an objective, intellectual perception of contemporary political and socio-economic issues of China and the richness of Chinese culture. As human rights issues are the most frequent cause of controversies about contemporary China, CAO is in no way, and has never been, trying to avoid or downplay such a big issue. As part of our club’s regular agenda, we hold at least one event about political and social issues every year. Last year, for instance, we held a forum on the Tibetan riots of March 2008, in which participants discussed extensively the human rights issues in Tibet. This past spring, we held a forum on “Sino-U.S Diplomatic Relationship” in which human rights were one of the three major parts of discussion — along with economic and diplomatic issues. Each year, we also have “Chinese Movie” series, in which interesting and internationally acclaimed presentations of life in China were screened. Many of these movies, because of their depiction of human rights issues, were banned in China, yet we included them in our movie series since we believe they portray facets of life in China that are critical for the campus community to gain a sophisticated understanding of the country.
In all these events, CAO organizers saw themselves as participants in the discussion rather than educators. Indeed, many of the CAO members might have their own personal political and social beliefs about China, but the club itself does not, and will not, try to advance any particular views. We believe that, had the author of the article participated in any of these recent CAO activities, he or she would not draw such harsh generalizations about it based on a single question mark.
It is true that at first we were quite upset and surprised to see such critical misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the club in the pages of The Student. But we are thankful for the spotlight, and we have come now to see this as a precious opportunity for CAO to become better known by the Amherst student body. Thus we would like to cordially invite all of you to come to our future events, to learn who we are and share with us anything you want to say about China. CAO’s mission cannot be fully realized without your valued and active participation.