To be honest I'm not sure what difference it would have made. They're too close to the mainland geographically. At best it'd be a Taiwan Jr. (with Beijing asserting outright ownership and refusing to recognize independence while being in a position to do something about it physically), and at worst, well, let's just say there wouldn't have been 50 years of freedom.
Put a hundred nukes and a few military bases and tell China to f-off. In fact that's what we should be doing in Taiwan right now. It's stupid to let this sort of government which to me closely resembles fascism do whatever it wants.
So, increase DoD spending even more (in such a way that cannot be easily reverted) and further antagonize with second most influential country on Earth which is really important to US economically - while confirming that all any small country needs to get free american help is to peddle a small democratic underdog narrative? Just to be clear - in Hong Kong case, I believe this narrative to be true, but it being true is much less important that it being perceived as true and actively promoted in american media.
This should be a global effort funded by democratic countries including the EU, North America, Britain, and maybe even India. The point is to keep the world from fracturing into hands of this sort of pseudo-fascism and capitalist-liberalism. The more I see the sorts of moves China is making, the more I feel that we're heading into a new sort of Cold War and America seems to be sitting back letting it happen rather than actively attempting to contain it... because it seems that they can't actually afford to do so.
That was the intent behind UN and League of Nations before that. Any new similar thing like will end up just like that - a beurocratic monstrosity that lacks any moral authority and is used as a pawn in realpolitik games.
Hong Kong, at least, is Chinese and always have been. The British leased the New Territories(90% of Hong Kong) from the Qing Dynasty. Hong Kong island is the only colonial possession, but it's too small to even fit an airport. So the Brits gave it up.
As it did for the people of Hong Kong. At the time of the handover it represented 20% of China's GDP. Today it's just 2.9%, although that's 5X per capita.
In an alternate world where the New Territories had their lease renewed, they probably would remained semi autonomous and any kind of full on independence would agitate China. I don't think they would have sought to isolate other nations over recognizing HK as PRC territory as the UK wields a bit of weight, but you probably would have seen some measures put forth that would have at least required private entities operating in China to treat HK as an extension of Chinese territory, much like what goes on today with Taiwan.
Hongkong was taken away from China with cannons and drugs.
Handing it back was the right thing to do legally (for the new territories), morally, and historically.
It's sad to see people effectively praising European imperialism in 2019, reminds me of the old "civilising the natives" antics.
Edit since I'm being prevented from relying to comments:
There is no regression. Those protesters were charged under a colonial-era law.
Hongkong did not even have the Legislative Council under the British, which was created it as a 'gift' to the Chinese.
From the popular vote, it seems to me that the "pro-Beijing" camp has a majority, so that's what "the people want"...
Let's be realistic and put things in perspective, shall we.
Edit 2:
To the person who replied:
> Meanwhile, during those 100 years, a new, distinct, non Chinese culture developed. Hong Kong people speak a different language than mainland, have different food, culture references and desires.
HK's culture is as Chinese as can be. In fact it is more traditional Chinese than the mainland. They speak Chinese
(Cantonese is 'Chinese', it's the language spoken in Guangdong province hence why it is spoken in HK, 'Canton' is how Guangzhou used to be called...), they eat Chinese.
It would be good to know a minimum about a topic before commenting.
I think the suggestion is that some comments give the impression that the "natives" would be much better off under Western rule than under their own people's.
I can understand that this may pass off as supporting European imperialism, and even perhaps racism.
We can hope that China becomes democratic but that is an issue for the Chinese people.
Meanwhile, during those 100 years, a new, distinct, non Chinese culture developed.
Hong Kong people speak a different language than mainland, have different food, culture references and desires.
Jordan was created in 1921.
Israel was created in 1948.
Most people agree that these countries have distinct cultures, and are younger than Hong Kong.
Unsure why you'd assume it would be (it's not) any different for Hong Kong, but would like to hear why.
Hong Kong speak cantonense, there are many more Cantonese speakers in Guangdong and the rest of China than Hong Kong. The food is very similar to the surrounding provinces as well, though with some variation...maybe?
HK culture, movies and pop music, has been hugely influential on the mainland, so I guess there is that.
There are perhaps good arguments for HK to be its own country, but distinct language and food isn’t one of them.
If Cantonese is really Chinese, why they the mainlander want to destroy it even in canton. They cannot practically read the “chinese” newspaper here or Taiwan as it is quite different. We do not eat dog and cat.
I think sentiment many hker is not really want to be chinese under the communist rule. Not even the establishment camp looking at the recent law enactment issue.
Back to the fundamental. Humanity with a sense of liberty would not sacrifice human and let them fall into the regime that have social credit system, no freedom to access internet, no freedom to worship both Jesus and be Muslim.
To this poster, and the above edit - I live and work in HK, and was in Hong Kong during the protests.
There are incredibly distinct Hong Kong foods. You'll never find yuanyang (tea coffee mix) in mainland,like you'll not find Rua Jia Mu (Chinese snack burger) in Hong Kong.
Obviously HKers have Cantonese roots. I wasn't arguing who was more traditional, I was pointing out that HKers consider themselves Hong Kongese, not Chinese.
The OP alludes that HK was kept under the yolk of British rule, and is eager to shed its shackles to return to the mainland. This is simply not the case.
I can assure you there are incredibly distinct foods, languages and cultures everywhere in China.
People from different provinces consider themselves "people from that particular province". I guess the difference is that they also consider themselves Chinese.
> The OP alludes that HK was kept under the yolk [sic] of British rule, and is eager to shed its shackles to return to the mainland. This is simply not the case.
China is a vast place, of course there are local dishes. But no-one would seriously even suggest that HK's food isn't Chinese food, or that their culture isn't Chinese.
> The OP alludes that HK was kept under the yolk of British rule, and is eager to shed its shackles to return to the mainland. This is simply not the case.
I cannot find any such allusion in this thread. It is true, though that the situation wasn't better under the British, and it was perhaps worse (no LegCo).
I thought HK spoke Cantonese? At least, until the PRC enforces Mandarin. It's a tactic with a long history - replace a people's language with your own.
Correct. Cantonese and English are official languages.
Outside of commerce and the central districts, it's definitely Cantonese with a smattering of English - which is quite nice.
I guess I'll be honest here as I spent way too long trying to come up with a response as your comment rattled a part of me, the part that gets a touch emotional when walking across the square where the shadow of the Goddess of Democracy once graced. Where those same stones were later soaked in the blood of men and women who only sought to voice their displeasure in the actions of their leaders.
I saw the umbrella movement as an early action to show that there will be resistance from those who do not feel that ruling party has their interest at heart. When those who lead and championed this movement were removed from the territories and sent to the mainland to be punished, it signaled that PRC was not going to change its tactics and resistance to gilded tyranny would have to charge on.
Now I have heard the arguments that you have parroted here, but this is the first time where I have someone effectively call my desire for my close friends to maintain their Democracy as a form of white supremacy. I'm sure you'll tell me that June 4th was just an uneventful day in that square and it was the West that unjustly agitated the student population.
HK was ran by a colonial government, the irony is that the British had 100 years to grant HK citizens full suffrage but chose not to do until China modernisation made handback inevitable.
> Ever since the 1950s, the Chinese government has continually threatened the British in attempting to bring any democratic developments in Hong Kong. Attempts to bring Hong Kong citizens on to the negotiating table by the British during the Sino-Anglo discussions were rejected by Beijing in the late 1980s. The last governor Chris Patten faced a great deal of opposition in changing the former colony's political system.
In this video you see a Chinese woman being arrested for making online comments about Xi Jinping. She says everything right and it doesn't matter, they just take her anyways.
I don't know what point I'm trying to make other than that it's a very sad state of affairs for Chinese people right now, and I feel for them.
I sometime wonder is heavy handed policing has always been common in major countries and we didn't have the mass communication tools to share it or if its a newer phenomenon
Numerous countries in the 20th century (China, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, even USA) have at some point either locked their people away in concentration camps, arrested them for dubious reasons, etc. Millions have been starved to death with no way to defend themselves or grow food.
Such a world does not exist anymore of course just 70 years later, however the culture in my opinion persists-- local authorities continue to feel they have the right to force and intimidation for even the most pedestrian of investigations now, such as for comments made online, rather than for murder.
Sorry, but this is blatant whataboutism. Guantanamo Bay is a tragedy and deserves all the criticism it gets, but:
- At its height, Guantanamo Bay had about 250 prisoners. It now has 41.
- Camps in Xinjiang are estimated to hold "hundreds of thousands" of prisoners.
They are not on the same scale whatsoever. If you wanted to make a comparison to American systems of imprisonment, the actual prison system itself is a far better (worse) example.
For starters, did I condone any of them being justified? Me making a statement about Gauntanamo Bay does not automatically imply I am defending the re-education camps in China.
So, here is a very basic lesson in maths:
If a => b is true, it does not necessarily mean b => a is true.
Oppression doesn’t matter. It only takes a few generations for anyone who doesn’t naturally love being enthusiastically servile to the state to weed themselves out of the gene pool. By then the obedience is baked in at the genetic level. The survivors of this process aren’t worth feeling sorry for.
I think colonization (at least the latter parts, maybe WWI and after) has been unjustly demonized. I live in a previously colonized country, and let me tell you, The Germans and then the British knew how to run this country better than the locals ever did, even today. For 30 years after independence, the people literally starved under communism. And the president of the time is still regarded a hero, despite people remembering the mass famine!
Perhaps the answer is not a return to colonialism, but to ask what the colonial governments got right. They certainly got a lot wrong, about which much discussion has already been had. Maybe it’s also worth remembering the positive lessons from that period.
I think it's important to draw a line between positive and negative colonialism. The British were legally given HK for 99 years, built infrastructure there, and turned it into a very wealthy territory that enjoyed many freedoms they would not otherwise have if it were a Chinese territory.
Even today, there is a significant number of people within HK that want to go back to British rule. Why deny what the people want?
Imagine, we must - for we can never know for sure whether such a world would indeed have been worse. They were, after all, very organized. Before the occupation, the main avenue in Copenhagen (a pair of two way streets) was chronically congested. The Germans changed it into a pair of one-way streets, doubling throughput. The change persists to this day. And as for the Holocaust - well, virtually all the Jews in German occupied territories were killed as it was. It's not clear that a German victory, whatever that means, would have resulted in many more deaths. And maybe a unified Europe, under whatever flag, might have resulted in some interesting benefits.
I'm not suggesting it would actually have been a good thing - I find the idea rather sickening. I'm just saying that any historical counterfactual is arguable, no matter how obvious it seems at first. I think it better to point at actual instances of colonialism gone wrong - indeed WW2 still qualifies, and it's not necessary for the Germans to have won to make that argument.
None of them are umbrella protestor core. They are OC which the Umbrella core may respect but sort of ignore. The localist and the young one are not these. Those have been jailed in previous sentence.
59 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 53.6 ms ] threadThat doesn't mean anything. Does it belong to the Chinese in the Communist party? Or the Chinese that live in Hong Kong?
Beijing might control HK now, but by acknowledging the tyrant's claim, we give them power.
Beijing is the capital of the PRC, not 'China'. There are many Chinas, the PRC does not have a monopoly on the name.
Hong Kong belongs to it's people.
Handing it back was the right thing to do legally (for the new territories), morally, and historically.
It's sad to see people effectively praising European imperialism in 2019, reminds me of the old "civilising the natives" antics.
Edit since I'm being prevented from relying to comments:
There is no regression. Those protesters were charged under a colonial-era law.
Hongkong did not even have the Legislative Council under the British, which was created it as a 'gift' to the Chinese.
From the popular vote, it seems to me that the "pro-Beijing" camp has a majority, so that's what "the people want"...
Let's be realistic and put things in perspective, shall we.
Edit 2:
To the person who replied:
> Meanwhile, during those 100 years, a new, distinct, non Chinese culture developed. Hong Kong people speak a different language than mainland, have different food, culture references and desires.
HK's culture is as Chinese as can be. In fact it is more traditional Chinese than the mainland. They speak Chinese (Cantonese is 'Chinese', it's the language spoken in Guangdong province hence why it is spoken in HK, 'Canton' is how Guangzhou used to be called...), they eat Chinese. It would be good to know a minimum about a topic before commenting.
Can read reddit, Facebook, google and hacker news.
I can understand that this may pass off as supporting European imperialism, and even perhaps racism.
We can hope that China becomes democratic but that is an issue for the Chinese people.
Jordan was created in 1921. Israel was created in 1948.
Most people agree that these countries have distinct cultures, and are younger than Hong Kong.
Unsure why you'd assume it would be (it's not) any different for Hong Kong, but would like to hear why.
HK culture, movies and pop music, has been hugely influential on the mainland, so I guess there is that.
There are perhaps good arguments for HK to be its own country, but distinct language and food isn’t one of them.
I think sentiment many hker is not really want to be chinese under the communist rule. Not even the establishment camp looking at the recent law enactment issue.
Back to the fundamental. Humanity with a sense of liberty would not sacrifice human and let them fall into the regime that have social credit system, no freedom to access internet, no freedom to worship both Jesus and be Muslim.
There are incredibly distinct Hong Kong foods. You'll never find yuanyang (tea coffee mix) in mainland,like you'll not find Rua Jia Mu (Chinese snack burger) in Hong Kong.
Obviously HKers have Cantonese roots. I wasn't arguing who was more traditional, I was pointing out that HKers consider themselves Hong Kongese, not Chinese.
The OP alludes that HK was kept under the yolk of British rule, and is eager to shed its shackles to return to the mainland. This is simply not the case.
China is a vast place and has a multitude of local flavours and dishes.
This does not mean that HK isn't Chinese.
People from different provinces consider themselves "people from that particular province". I guess the difference is that they also consider themselves Chinese.
> The OP alludes that HK was kept under the yolk [sic] of British rule, and is eager to shed its shackles to return to the mainland. This is simply not the case.
But they were. Governers were appointed by the Queen. Protests were brutally surpressed -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_1966_riots
(edit: typos)
> The OP alludes that HK was kept under the yolk of British rule, and is eager to shed its shackles to return to the mainland. This is simply not the case.
I cannot find any such allusion in this thread. It is true, though that the situation wasn't better under the British, and it was perhaps worse (no LegCo).
I saw the umbrella movement as an early action to show that there will be resistance from those who do not feel that ruling party has their interest at heart. When those who lead and championed this movement were removed from the territories and sent to the mainland to be punished, it signaled that PRC was not going to change its tactics and resistance to gilded tyranny would have to charge on.
Now I have heard the arguments that you have parroted here, but this is the first time where I have someone effectively call my desire for my close friends to maintain their Democracy as a form of white supremacy. I'm sure you'll tell me that June 4th was just an uneventful day in that square and it was the West that unjustly agitated the student population.
Morally? Really? Think people in HK agree?
HK developed a form of democracy and is forced to rejoin a country that is comparably underdeveloped. Socially, culturally and legislatively.
> Ever since the 1950s, the Chinese government has continually threatened the British in attempting to bring any democratic developments in Hong Kong. Attempts to bring Hong Kong citizens on to the negotiating table by the British during the Sino-Anglo discussions were rejected by Beijing in the late 1980s. The last governor Chris Patten faced a great deal of opposition in changing the former colony's political system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCOAbkTs_a4
In this video you see a Chinese woman being arrested for making online comments about Xi Jinping. She says everything right and it doesn't matter, they just take her anyways.
I don't know what point I'm trying to make other than that it's a very sad state of affairs for Chinese people right now, and I feel for them.
Such a world does not exist anymore of course just 70 years later, however the culture in my opinion persists-- local authorities continue to feel they have the right to force and intimidation for even the most pedestrian of investigations now, such as for comments made online, rather than for murder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
- At its height, Guantanamo Bay had about 250 prisoners. It now has 41.
- Camps in Xinjiang are estimated to hold "hundreds of thousands" of prisoners.
They are not on the same scale whatsoever. If you wanted to make a comparison to American systems of imprisonment, the actual prison system itself is a far better (worse) example.
So, here is a very basic lesson in maths: If a => b is true, it does not necessarily mean b => a is true.
Besides, does America not also have one of the highest incarceration rates in the worlds? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra...
I mean China has a lot of catching up with America (just order by per 100,000): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcera...
Even today, there is a significant number of people within HK that want to go back to British rule. Why deny what the people want?
I'm not suggesting it would actually have been a good thing - I find the idea rather sickening. I'm just saying that any historical counterfactual is arguable, no matter how obvious it seems at first. I think it better to point at actual instances of colonialism gone wrong - indeed WW2 still qualifies, and it's not necessary for the Germans to have won to make that argument.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade