Maybe that title will overload the PRC censors…

    Here’s what the Beijing leaders are thinking about (thanks to Daai Tou Laam):

In a regular briefing in Beijing yesterday, Foreign
Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said the two incidents [Dongzhou, 2005 and Tiananmen, 1989] were not comparable
as no conclusion had been reached about the Dongzhou violence.

"Conclusions have been reached on the 1989 incidents, but no
conclusion has been drawn on this event. How can we know if they are
the same type of incident?" he asked.

     So, they really are trying to name the incident (as I suggested in my past post), to determine its "type."  How about this: it is an incident that demonstrates the illegitimacy of the regime.  This would be a Confucian reading of it, since the Venerable Sage would see the resort to force as an indicator that the ruler has already lost legitimacy.  It would also be a Weberian reading of it, since that German sociologist would also see the actual use of force as a breakdown of one or another (charismatic, traditional, legal-rational) form of authority.

    In this sense – as expressions of the breakdown of regime legitimacy – Dongzhou is very much like Tiananmen, 1989, albeit on a smaller scale.

 And Hooray for those brave intellectuals and activists in China who have signed a letter of protest to the government which reads, in part:

"We express the utmost protest and condemnation of the
Guangdong authorities who are responsible for this bloodshed," the
letter said.

"We also strongly protest against the
evil attitude of the Chinese authorities because it did not make any
public explanation, clarification or investigation."

    "Evil," that sounds about right.

     Remember Dongzhou!