Nampaknya bung TIDAK BISA bersabar menunggu bagaimana tokoh2 pejuang DEMOKRAT Tian An Men itu membuat KESIMPULAN dengan baik sebagai jawaban yang bung tanyakan itu?
Namun perlu saya luruskan sedikit, darah berkucur dilapangan Tian An Men, tapi TIDAK sampai membanjir, ... kenyataan TIDAK ada korban jiwa sampai ribuan bahkan ada yang lebih gila berteriak belasan ribu jiwa! Jawaban saya, pada saat keras lawan keras, yang terjadi hanyalah KEPALA dibenturkan ke BATU, ...! Kalau saja benturan itu sedikit saja, tentu kepala benjut! Tapi, begitu benturan itu agak keras yaa, bocorlah kepala orang! Lebih keras lagi, yaa bukan saja kepala bocor, mampuslah anda, lalu, ... ??? From: [email protected] [GELORA45] Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2017 12:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [GELORA45] Re: The Hothouse Generation bung Chan anda sama sekali tidak menjawab, bagaimana darah bisa membanjir? ---In [email protected], <SADAR@...> wrote : Beginilah MODEL manusia-manusia berjiwa IBLIS sesungguhnya, pantaslah kalau yang menamakan diri tokoh2 pejuang DEMOKRAT Tian An Men itu hampir lewat 30 tetap saja tidak juga berhasil membuat KESIMPULAN dengan baik! Apalagi diantara mereka yang menggerakkan aksi demo di Tiaqn An Men itu jangankan bonyok, TIDAK SEORANG pun kepala-mereka yang benjut, ...!!! Bung bersabarlah tunggu bagaimana jawaban mereka itu, ... From: jonathangoeij@... [GELORA45] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 3:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [GELORA45] Re: The Hothouse Generation bagaimana bertahan bisa darah membanjiri? ---In [email protected], <SADAR@...> wrote : Masalah utama bukan “ketimbang bonyok”! Kalau saja tokoh2 utama nya yang “bonyok” tentu TIDAK APA2, yang CELAKA dan sangat saangat tidak bertanggungjawab adalah justru menjadikan massa demonstran sebagai TUMBAL, yang boleh saja dikorbankan! Sikap TOKOH2 utama pejuang DEMOKRAT itu sangat, sangat TIDAK BERTANGGUNGJAWAB, dalam melaksanakan perintah “BERTAHAN!” dilapangan Tian An Men setelah jam ditentukan harus BERSIH! Tanpa memperhitungkan kemungkinan yang akan terjadi dan bagaimana menghadapinya. Ini pertama. Kedua, tokoh2 utama itu TIDAK SATU pun berada dilapangan untuk MEMIMPIN demonstrasi yang menghadapi penggusuran itu, tapi SENGAJA MEMBIARKAN massa demonstrasi itu menjadi TUMBAL untuk menjungkelkan pemerintah yang berkuasa dengan DARAH yang membanjiri lapangan Tian An Men! PEMIKIRAN IBLIS yang sangat KEJAM dan tidak manusiawi! Ketiga, lalu setelah kejadian penggusuran, untuk mewujutkan tujuan KEJI itu, tokoh2 demokrat tidak segan2 memutar balik fakta, memfitnah TPRT telah menembaki dan melindas massa demonstran dengan tank, ... melakukan kekejaman kemanusiaan dalam menumpas rakyat yang berbeda pendapat! Dan, ... fitnah-fitnah keji itu tetap saja didengungkan dengan santer bagaikan gramofon rusak, menjadi suara SUMBANG yang meneriakkan dengan sekeras-kerasnya TANPA ada bukti akurat yang bisa menunjang! Dan semua itu terjadi hanya karena tokoh2 pejuang demokrat itu TETAP saja bersuara demi majikannya, AS yang telah menjadikan RRT sebagai “ANCAMAN UTAMA” AS meneruskan pimpinan dunia! From: Jonathan Goeij jonathangoeij@... [GELORA45] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 7:25 AM To: Yahoogroups Subject: [GELORA45] Re: The Hothouse Generation kesimpulan yg logis dan manusiawi "ketimbang bonyok" ---In [email protected], <djiekh@...> wrote : Kesimpulan dari mahasiswa2 menurut Ezra Vogel adalah : Student leaders, considering what to do after June 4, acknowledged to one another that they had been naïve in challenging the nation's leaders and in expecting them to give up their power. Students of this generation, as well as the following generations, took away from their tragic experience the lesson that direct confrontation with the leadership would likely cause a reaction so forceful that it was not worth the costs. The Chinese students after June 4, then, unlike their counterparts in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, stopped attacking the Communist Party. Many students came to believe that progress could only be achieved by slowly building a base, by improving the economic livelihood of more people, by improving people's understanding of public issues, and by gradually developing experience in democracy and freedom. Even some students who were not members of the Communist Party acknowledged that the leaders had been in danger of losing control over the country, and that only the party could maintain the stability necessary to promote economic growth. Many believed that despite the corrupt and self-serving officials, the Communist-led program that had brought about the reform and opening policies—and with them, the improved livelihood of the people—was preferable to any likely alternative. They hoped that after decades of stability and economic growth, a stronger base for a freer society could develop. In the meantime, the vast majority of student activists simply gave up promoting collective action and instead concentrated on pursuing their own careers. ---In [email protected], <jonathangoeij@...> wrote : Tulisan ini bagus, terima kasih telah mem-posting bung Djie. Memang benar kelihatan sekali para demonstran itu terlalu naive menganggap para pemimpin negara akan melihat ketulusan mereka "... harbored the illusion that their national leaders would recognize their patriotism and their high morals, talk with them, take their concerns as legitimate, and deal with the issues they were raising." Mereka terlalu naive sehingga menjadi korban sia2 dan hanya bisa bersedih akibat pembantaian yang dilakukan para pemimpin negara yang ebih memilih mempertahankan kekuasaan dgn berbagai cara apapun biarpun itu mengorbankan rakyatnya sendiri "After June 4, students and their families mourned those who had been killed or injured. They also mourned the loss of hope that a more open, moral China would emerge in the near future." ---In [email protected], <djiekh@...> wrote : Tertarik dengan istilah bung Lin " ingusan", saya cari di bukuEzra F. Vogel, Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China. Ini tulisannya di halaman 632 dan 633 : The Hothouse Generation and a postponement of Hope. The students and older intellectuals who took part in the 1989 demonstrations—like intellectuals throughout Chinese history—felt a deep sense of responsibility for the fate of their country. They were, however, a hothouse generation, with little experience outside their schools and universities. Unlike the students of the late 1940s, they had not spent years building an organization to attain power. Unlike the students of the early 1980s, they had not been tempered by political campaigns, struggles during the Cultural Revolution, or work in the countryside. They were the ablest students of their generation, but they had been tested by examinations instead of experiences—they were the sheltered beneficiaries of academic reform in the best middle schools and universities of the country. Moreover, these students had grown up at a time in Chinese history that offered no space for independent political activists to organize and test their ideas. The demonstrators were not members of political organizations, but a part of crowds with changing leaders and loosely affiliated participants. Those who rose to take high positions in the movement did so not by displaying superior judgment and strategic planning, but through their spontaneous oratory and bravado. Those who remained in the square harbored the illusion that their national leaders would recognize their patriotism and their high morals, talk with them, take their concerns as legitimate, and deal with the issues they were raising. 58 This hothouse student generation resembled Sun Yat-sen's description of China in the 1920s: like a sheet of loose sand. Zhao Ziyang's opponents blamed him for inciting the students and directing their spears at Deng. Zhao's supporters, in turn, blamed his rivals for provoking the students to embarrass Zhao. Both Zhao's supporters and his opponents may have tried to direct the student protestors, but in fact they had little ability to do so. The Chinese students marched to their own drummers. Even the students' own leaders could only incite the protesters gathered in the square, not control them. After June 4, students and their families mourned those who had been killed or injured. They also mourned the loss of hope that a more open, moral China would emerge in the near future. Student leaders, considering what to do after June 4, acknowledged to one another that they had been naïve in challenging the nation's leaders and in expecting them to give up their power. Students of this generation, as well as the following generations, took away from their tragic experience the lesson that direct confrontation with the leadership would likely cause a reaction so forceful that it was not worth the costs. The Chinese students after June 4, then, unlike their counterparts in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, stopped attacking the Communist Party. Many students came to believe that progress could only be achieved by slowly building a base, by improving the economic livelihood of more people, by improving people's understanding of public issues, and by gradually developing experience in democracy and freedom. Even some students who were not members of the Communist Party acknowledged that the leaders had been in danger of losing control over the country, and that only the party could maintain the stability necessary to promote economic growth. Many believed that despite the corrupt and self-serving officials, the Communist-led program that had brought about the reform and opening policies—and with them, the improved livelihood of the people—was preferable to any likely alternative. They hoped that after decades of stability and economic growth, a stronger base for a freer society could develop. In the meantime, the vast majority of student activists simply gave up promoting collective action and instead concentrated on pursuing their own careers.
