Your argument contains several claims that are not supported by the historical evidence.
That is wrong :P
There was a violent crackdown in Beijing in June 1989.
That is correct. As the protesters were violent, too. The first people who died: were soldiers.
While the exact death toll is disputed, there is broad agreement among historians that hundreds, and possibly more than a thousand,
Yes, from 10,000 to 30,000 protesters ... while regrettable the death toll was not particular high.
The protests did not begin as a violent uprising.
Correct, and I never claimed otherwise.
They started as largely peaceful demonstrations calling for political reform And turned violent the next day already when troops from "other provinces" came into the city, and people who wanted to prevent them to reach the plaza attacked them.
Claims that the crackdown relied on ethnic groups chosen because they were hostile to Han Chinese are not supported by credible historical sources.
Then you have bad sources.
It was all over the news when the events happend. I watched them life ... you did not.
The claim about mandatory two-year programs for all ethnic groups is inaccurate. China has implemented various education, labor, and relocation policies affecting different ethnic minorities, especially Uyghurs in Xinjiang, but these policies were not introduced as a response to Tiananmen Square. Researchers generally view those policies as part of the Chinese government's broader strategy of political control and assimilation rather than a measure to prevent another Tiananmen.
That is a matter of wording.
Point is: the people are "forced" to spent two years at different place outside of their province. To force them to "see other parts of China", and do not consider their "own place" as superiour. Side effect: they hopefully learn Mandarin.
Finally, dismissing the Tiananmen Square crackdown by comparing it to other events doesn't address the historical record.
I did not dismiss it. You have a reading comprehension problem.
Serious discussions should rely on evidence from contemporaneous reporting, archival documents, eyewitness testimony, and academic research, not egotistical, unsupported assertions from the Chinese Communist Party point of view.
I am an eye witness. And I have no clue about CPC's point of view. As I never looked at their view.