[peisistratos]

It sounds like the US government ministers who defended the 1992 crackdown in Los Angeles at the Republican National Convention and elsewhere. The US army marched in to quell the upset, and dozens were killed.

Although we do not hear much about that in the US other than praise of the army. Just endless rehashes of Beijing events before LA happened, in the middle of Trump's trade and South China sea war with China.

[Rebelgecko]

The 1992 Republican National Convention was in Houston and AFAIK no one died

[peisistratos]

I said Los Angeles, not Houston.

It was defended at the 1992 RNC as I said - https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/patrickbuchanan199...

In fact the Republicans have this speaker saying an almost word for word echo of what the Chinese minister said.

[Rebelgecko]

Gotcha. The post was written in an ambiguous way that made me thing <in Los Angeles at the Republication National Convention> was an event that you were referring to. I think the main differences with the LA riots are:

Relatively few people were killed by the government, and most of them were self defense or unintentional. While perhaps some of the deaths in Tienanmen square were self defense (e.g. the soldier that was lynched and hanged from a burnt out bus), most of them weren't. Most of the people killed in Tienanmen were unarmed.

The US is pretty open about the LA riots. I can Google it and get useful results, I can see pictures of bodies and soldiers on Google images, I can watch documentaries about it on Netflix, if I go to my local library (operated by the government of Los Angeles) I can get books about the riots. Some of the books are even written by soldiers who were there, and the authors use their own names because they aren't afraid of reprisals for talking about what happened. The rules of engagement for soldiers were much more restrictive than they had experienced while deployed to Vietnam or the middle east. (https://thefederalist.com/2017/04/28/learned-civil-unrest-lo...)

[peisistratos]

The two replies are completely puzzled about what I mean by the US army marching into Los Angeles in 1992, with dozens dead in the wake.

It makes me think of people who are "shocked" that Chinese college students don't know about Beijing in 1989, and they say how the Chinese elite have suppressed events. But I talk about the US army marching into Los Angeles in 1992 and dozens dead in the wake, and it is a complete mystery to multiple people here, they have no idea what I'm talking about.

[openasocket]

People probably don't know what you're talking about because of the way you phrased it. Generally people don't recognize "the 1992 LA Riots" but they do recognize "the Rodney King Riots", which I'm pretty sure is what you are referring to?

Also, saying that the military and police killed "dozens" is a bit disingenuous. While 53 people were killed during the riots, of those 8 were killed by police and 2 by national guardsmen.

[dionian]

I mean, it's like 0.0001 tiananmens. the US government never ran over hundreds of peaceful pro-democracy protesters with motherfucking tanks.

[DFHippie]

Are you thinking of the protests in 1968 at the Democratic National Convention? It was the police, there, not the army. I don't believe there were any deaths there, though. Maybe you're thinking of Kent State? That wasn't affiliated with any party's convention.

[smacke]

Hi, you are probably being down voted because your post is being interpreted as "whataboutism", although perhaps that was not your intention.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism