A fascinating and not yet popularized machine, it was most commonly ridden by members of affluent societies. As it’s newness wore off, however, it slowly became available those of the more humble classes, and in place of the word “bicycle”, the term “foreign horse” found it’s use in the minds and mouths of the masses. Strebeigh includes that the term “foreign” communicated the people’s feelings of admiration for the bicycle while alluding to the fact that it was modern. The peasantry of China found themselves with the deepest sense of admiration for the “foreign horse”. To them, the thought of owning one brought to mind the ease it could bring to their everyday lives, as they often carried burdensome loads on their backs. Yet, the low supply and thus high cost of the bicycle made it’s acquisition impractical for them. In response to the desire, the government later began regulating higher production rates of the bicycle to readily supply them to the impoverished and raise morale. However, the term “foreign horse” was banned in light of it’s glorification of another nation’s ingenuity, highlighting the extremes of the Chinese government to exercise their sovereign of the people. In it’s place, the name “self-running cart”. This served to express the government sentiment that the people could have what they wanted, but only at it’s complete …show more content…
It was Tianenmen Square in Bejing which saw the organization of a large-scale demonstration which rallied for government reform. It lasted weeks, and ended upon the mobilization of troops to the area. Their invasion was destructive and resulted in the loss of many lives as troops initiated the use of tanks and weaponry to control the people. In media coverage, it was not the bloodied bodies of victims that were aired on television screens in Chinese homes, but rather the depiction of bicycles which had been crushed by the military. Of it, Strebeigh writes, “They wanted to show crushed dignity, crushed humanity, crushed freedom--so much that the bicycle means in China.” (Strebeigh). This image was a wise devise of the government. They knew what the bicycle represented to the people, and knew that to show it destroyed would communicate their dominance and triumph. The concept of tyrannical rule and its implied bleakness are often incomprehensible, or altogether unrecognized by the people of more democratic countries given their many freedoms. With the words of Fred Strebeigh, however, perspective expands. The honor of an object as seemingly simple as a bicycle becomes worthy of defense, even dying for, and the tragedy of oppressive rule becomes very