Date of this Version
June 12, 2009 in The China Beat http://www.thechinabeat.org/
A week (or so) after the anniversary of the “May 35th” events (as some Chinese netizens put it to circumvent automatic blocks on mention of a highly charged date), we got several more responses to our request to Friends of the Blog for word on how June 4th was commemorated, discussed, or ignored in various parts of the world. The most substantial (reproduced in full below) is a second contribution to the series (click herefor her first) by Paola Voci (an Italian-born, American-trained, New Zealand-based specialist in Chinese visual culture whose book, China on Video: Small Screen Realities, is due out later this year). [Her post explains the eye-catching image we are running here, which she sent to us along with her e-mail.]
We also heard from a couple of people regularly or temporarily based in Central or Eastern Europe, both of whom noted how relatively little interest there was in looking back to Tiananmen and connecting China’s 1989 to the upheavals that took place in that same year in the region.
Grabriella Ivacs, a Budapest-based archivist at Central European University’s extraordinary Open Society Archive (it has holdings on human rights, the history of Communism in Europe in particular, and other topics that are too special to try to summarize, so we’ll just encourage readers to make the jump and explore their website, where they’ll also find information on the innovative exhibitions OSA has mounted, some of which have dealt at least in part with China) wrote to say that “Hungarian papers and online news portals were not particularly interested in Beijing events” last week. She stressed that “Hungary is going through a serious political crisis, and [the press in] early June was focused on [the] EU election campaign.” She notes that there were occasional articles on the anniversary, including one in a “left wing daily,” Nepszabadsag, that placed the Massacre “in the context of 1989…the symbolic year of Transition in Eastern and Central Europe,” but, “(i)nterestingly,” claimed that the “1989 changes in Europe had no direct connection” to the contemporaneous “Beijing events.”