Task: With reference to the Tiananmen Event (See pdf) - write a TOK style response (2/3 paragraphs) highlighting the contrasting Knowledge Claims and role of language (WOK) in generating certainty of belief in History. Base your evidence on the two texts you have studied, paying attention to the captions for the photos and statements made.

Here is an example of what can be done

The historical point in time – the June fourth 1989 activity in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, illustrates clearly the knowledge issue: “TWE can truth in history be verified through language?” Why? Essentially it is through two countering perspectives driven by knowledge claims from the Chinese government and the western democratic liberal press that has engendered this major knowledge issue. From the Chinese perspective the Knowledge Claim is that this day was “an incident” in history whereas the western view carries the claim of a “massacre”. The connotations of these two words alone mark the competing perspectives and claims of history. So which one is right? This is very contextual and depends on one’s ideological position or bias. In the case of China it could be considered “national bias”. From the western perspective it is “propaganda”.

In examining the language as a way of knowing from the Chinese communist perspective, the students on that day are labeled as “rioters,” “frenzied attackers,” “murderers,” and “mobs”. All these terms have emotive connotations of unjustified, criminal action. Their actions were described in military terms: “besieged”, “attacked” “blocked” and supporting the rioter term – “inciting” was applied to them. This powerful word suggests that the students acted illegally and violently. All this language shows the Chinese ideological position against the students and is used to justify the claim that this day produced “an incident” that was against the “constitution” and not a “massacre”. One of the captions states in support of the troops: “To defend the motherland, the Constitution and the people, they sacrificed their blood and even their precious lives”. This language is highly emotive, expecting an emotional response and positioning the reader to see the heroism of the troops and the sense that the students were threatening the entire political and social system of China. Sense perception, too, plays a role with the selection of photographs, which emphasise the damage done to the troops. Here, what we see, combined with the language of the caption reinforces the emotional positioning of the production. Thus three WoK collude to create a position on that historical event which intends to paint a pro-government anti-protester agenda.

The language used in the counter claim text “The Rape of Peking” is equally filled with connotations and emotion all designed to generate a version of history through words. The very title echoes another infamous incident – the rape of Nanjing, and here the writers are using the emotions attached to the 1937 event to suggest that June 4th 1989 was of equal horror. From the cover of the book we can see the use of language as a way of knowing is used to justify the knowledge claim. The students are called “protestors” for “freedom and democracy” which clearly suggests their ideological position, a noble cause ethically undertaken for the greater good. The behaviour of the troops is described as “butchery”. This metaphorical statement is a version of history which claims that the students were murdered like animals. The view of the writers is that the event was “mass-murder of unarmed civilians, beaten crushed and shot in cold blood”. Here the

powerfully emotive triplet of violent verbs carries the version of history and the knowledge claim that this was a “weekend of slaughter”. Their political views against the Chinese government is made clear with the statement “terrify into submission anybody who dared think that the authority of the Party could be challenged”. Again, like the Chinese government publication, the very selection of images in the document makes use of the WoK sense perception as we see moments associated with protesters in positions of peaceful demonstration or in a state of death. Alongside the captions, which promote democracy the two WoK language and sense perception collude to encourage an emotional reaction that supports a western democratic ideology.

So what is the truth? Where is the certainty of knowledge? In the face of these knowledge claims and counter claims how can we resolve the knowledge issue concerning the power of language as a WoK to deliver truth for the writing and understanding of Historical events? Ultimately in the presence of competing ideological positions we must turn to context. From a western liberal position the event was a “massacre” but in China’s back yard it was a necessary act to maintain “social stability” – an act to preserve law and order. Perhaps the answer ultimately lies in ethics. China has blocked websites with references to Tiananmen Square – we may well ask: is this for the greater good?