I think that the Tiananmen Square Incident of June 4, 1989 happened at an immature moment in history, with an immature populace, including government officials, forming an immature political movement with unclear goals. So, its ending was also tragic. What do I mean by immature? Because I experienced it, I feel that I have the right to say this:  it was immature because, for one, at the time, China's system was basically state-owned. Not 100%, but at least 90% of the workers either worked in state-owned enterprises or for the government, society was not diversified. Even in economic life, society was not diversified. CCP leaders, or government entities, were in every kind of enterprise. It was the same in terms of politics, it was one-faceted, there were not diversified interest groups. So, in this one-faceted social system, to suggest multi-faceted political reform, a multi-faceted democratic movement, was immature. Secondly, I think China at the time, the youth, middle-aged people, and even the elderly, everyone shouted democratic slogans, but they could not explain what democracy was. Many people did not have a real understanding. Democracy isn't just theories and principles, Democracy is more of a habit. At the time, for more than 90% of the Chinese people--100% of Chinese people--habit was a thousand year old tradition of autocracy. So their demands of political reform, and their demands of democracy were vague and sometimes unrealistic. This is what I mean by an immature period, an immature populace, and the result of an immature, necessarily tragic political movement.