I meant the church, not christianity. The roman catholic church killed christians all over Europe if they didn't accept the official doctrine. What is typical for the church is its behavior to suck up to anyone with influence or power.
Individual priests, nuns, and laity have often been at the forefront of defending people's rights in dictatorships. The organisations' track records have been more checkered.
True, I was more precise in another comment. I meant the roman catholic church specifically, not christians in general. And not all churches of course. When my father died when I was young I got into some financial troubles. The local christian community helped me with direct monetary support, no questions asked. I will certainly not forget that even if I payed them back multiple times by now and don't really believe.
They also have a lot of shelters for homeless and others in need of help in my country without any missionary ambitions (today at least, historically it was for missionary purposes). They help out where the state fails and it fails a lot.
Still the institution of the roman catholic church and christians are not synonymous to me. And any form of criticism is certainly directed at the churches power structures, not at their priests. I think the current pope is quite nice, but I disagree with him here.
Like all other multinationals, thirsty enough for access to the Chinese market it’s willing to look the other way
Edit: ya know, this is probably an excellent idea for the church. Every extra Chinese Catholic is someone who will likely ultimately accept the Pope’s authority over the CCP’s, regardless of if there are CCP friendly bishops. Get a big enough beachhead amongst poor Chinese, and bide their time, and they’re probably on to something.
Nah, if Christianity gets big enough in China to threaten CCP rule, they'll break off from the Pope, form their own branch (sinodoxy?) and fight to be seen as an equal authority. Then they can do things like ban service in anything but Chinese and decree all Bibles must be in Chinese, etc. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because Christianity is not big enough there.
> The Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, abbreviated CPA, CPCA or CCPA, is an organization established in 1957 by the People's Republic of China's Religious Affairs Bureau to supervise mainland China's Catholics. It is the only organizational body of Catholics in China officially recognized by the government of the People's Republic of China, but is not recognized by the Vatican.
> In his encyclical Ad Apostolorum principis of 29 July 1958, Pope Pius XII deplored the attitude and activities of the Association and declared the bishops who participated in consecrating new bishops selected by the Association to be excommunicated. Pope Benedict XVI referred to the agents of the Association as people who, though not ordained priests and sometimes not baptized, "control and take decisions concerning important ecclesial questions, including the appointment of bishops." The organization is overseen by the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China following the State Administration for Religious Affairs' absorption into the United Front Work Department in 2018.
> The Three-Self Patriotic Movement is a Protestant organization in the People's Republic of China, and one of the largest Protestant bodies in the world. It is colloquially known as the Three-Self Church.
> In May 1950, Y. T. Wu and other prominent Protestant leaders such as T. C. Chao, Chen Chonggui, and Cora Deng met in Beijing with Zhou Enlai to discuss Protestant Christianity's relationship with the young People's Republic of China. "The Christian Manifesto" was published in July 1950 and its original title was "Direction of Endeavor for Chinese Christianity in the Construction of New China." During the 1950s, 400,000 Protestant Christians publicly endorsed and signed this document.
> The purpose of publishing this document was: to heighten our vigilance against imperialism, to make known the clear political stand of Christians in New China, to hasten the building of a Chinese church whose affairs are managed by the Chinese themselves, and to indicate the responsibilities that should be taken up by Christians throughout the whole country in national reconstruction in New China.
> It further stated the movement promoted the "self-governance, self-support, and self-propagation" of the Chinese church.
"And if you tolerate this, then your children will be next"
And in a more serious note, from "First they came.." [1]. It is about the cowardice of German intellectuals and certain clergy (including, by his own admission, Niemöller himself) following the Nazis' rise to power and subsequent incremental purging of their chosen targets, group after group.:
First they came for the Communists - And I did not speak out - Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists - And I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists - And I did not speak out - Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews - And I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me - And there was no one left - To speak out for me
The Vatican and the Chinese government have had an uneasy relationship for a very long time (dare I say forever) and the Vatican has been working hard to reach an agreement about the appointment of bishops and other aspects in 2018.
Perhaps they just felt that making such public comments would achieve nothing apart from undoing that work.
The Catholic Church has been around for almost 2,000 years. I'm sure they know how to play a long game.
>The Church knows how to draft behind power. Hong Kong’s is receding, Beijing’s is burgeoning. No doubt onto whose teat the Church will hungrily latch.
If that were the case, the Vatican should have been among the first to switch recognition from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the PRC, but instead, it is the only remaining European state that still maintains full diplomatic relations with Taiwan.[1]
>The Vatican and the Chinese government have had an uneasy relationship for a very long time
They probably picked them after their last relationship, which was about touting the US during the cold war, and working with the far-right to stir hysteria in Italy. How the tides turn...
The more pressing issue is that everyone more powerful than the Pope has so far found themselves impotent in the face of the Chinese threat. Trump, Merkel, Modi, Putin etc all too weak to act.
I'm surprised he's not more concerned by Chinese border expansion against India. A nuclear war on his doorstep might affect business, or Russia might be next, or it might invite more US activity in his back yard.
But yeah, I think Putin gave up on internationalism back in the 2000s.
Destabilisation almost anywhere is bread and honey to Putin, it's what he lives on. Anyway that disputed border is 2,000km from the nearest Russian territory, which itself is some remote Siberian backwater. India buys a lot fo Russian military gear, so ka-ching!
If I was a large, sparsely populated country that shared a border with China, I’d be more than a little worried about Chinese territorial ambitions. If they’re willing to rattle sabres with India over some Godforsaken rocks, imagine what they’d be willing to do for the territorial riches that lie North.
No question it's an issue for the coming decades. China still respects the military capabilities of Russia and their ability to defend their territory. Russia is well ahead of India in capabilities. The question is when or will that respect change and what would change it. Arrogance inevitably gets the better of all superpowers, it can't be more than 10-20 years before China starts openly trying to take Russian border territory.
I also wouldn't want to be Mongolia. There's a potential that China will leave Mongolia intact as a buffer with the long Russian border. If China wants to expand its territory, there's no easier, larger target than Mongolia (17/18th largest nation by land with only 3m people and essentially no military ability to defend itself).
My (limited) understanding is that Mongolia is mostly steppe, and the Mongolians have several thousand years of claim to the land, neither of which is true of — say — Outer Manchuria. Russia will struggle to get much sympathy if the Chinese execute a “Crimean Gambit” there.
CCP has settled 12/14 of her inherited land borders disputes (China being the most bordered nation in the world), including with Russia in the 90s after border skirmish in the 60s. All of which with greater Chinese concessions with exception of Pakistan who gave more to spite Indian. Putin's not worried because CCP has a categorically good record for settling land border. Also Russia is China's backup lifeline for energy products via pipelines and Putin is probably interested to see how far Chinese lawfare methods can go. India/Bhutan is China's the last unsettled land border, India is currently beefing with all her neighbors which is conveniently not reported upon. This South Asian in a Nutshell gif summarizes the situation pretty aptly.
You can be both unnecessarily provocative and weak in the same domain. Provocation and effective use of strength aren’t the same thing; just as you can “speak softly and carry a big stick”, so can you do the opposite.
Maybe, but that depends if you think trade action against China, and drawing attention to the increasing oppression of the citizens of Hong Kong, is ineffectual. Do you have any proposals?
Right, so somehow he navigated the entrenched political machine of Washington DC to become president, de-escalated and decreased American influence at various war-torn hotspots (this is a whole different debate, but IMHO withdrawing from hotspots that the US has largely helped create is only a good thing), implemented a number of quite successful US business and trade policies, and started healthcare reform in the form of transparent pricing laws, all while being an irrational, despotic lunatic?
In case you missed it, that was a list of the upsides of the Trump presidency. He certainly hasn't done anything like turn 3rd world countries into slave-trading hellhole failed states. Wouldn't want someone like that in a position of power, would we?
You list a whole pile of things that when looked at slightly differently are net negatives and claim victory, and as for your last point, there is still a good 6 months to go, I wouldn't put it past him.
Frankly, we all collectively should be downright ashamed of Trump being the leader of the most influential country in the world, the fact that this happened is a terrible strike against this particular form of democracy. The damage done will take decades to repair, and likely America's reputation in the world will never recover to the point that it was at before Trump pulled his coup of the Republican party.
"You list a whole pile of things that when looked at slightly differently are net negatives"
Granted, but that's true of almost all of any politician's work. Kinda makes the point that it's not all bad, eh?
"America's reputation in the world" - give me a break. Out here, in the rest of the world, we don't really care. America really isn't (or ever was) the bright shining light the world looks to.
Why would China specifically care what the pope has to say? I understand the pope is the one not expressing anything but why would China even pressure him in the first place. I thought China was already prohibiting religion from taking place. So what leverage does China have on the pope?
> What is left of the catholic church if you reject the pope?
> Protestants
I think you mean “Eastern Orthodox”, as they both were rejecting the primacy (at least, in the terms Catholics define it) of the Pope long before Protestants existed and remain closer to the Roman Catholics on most points other than the primacy of the Pope than Protestants, who reject a lot more about Catholicism than the role of the Pope.
Holy See still recognizes Taiwan as official "China". China started courting Vatican a few years ago to change recognition, one point of leverage is 2018 Holy See-China Agreement which allows Pope to veto bishops China select, which gives Vatican some semblance of control and future access.
On religion, just the opposite if you go by Buddhism numbers, +200m since cultural revolution. I've read that China wants to promote religion with Chinese characteristics as a foreign policy tool. Countries along the Belt & Road in China's sphere of influence are religious - being able to send out Chinese representatives with shared religious background might be beneficial. Maybe Chinese missionaries could even disseminate religion with Chinese characteristics. On top of internal stability, behind the elevated repression happening in XJ and Tibet are efforts to sinicize the major religions in terms of physical design (symbolism, architecture) and political structure to harmonize with Chinese society. Maybe there's a generalized "socialist" package for authoritarian governments to export. Though I find this thesis suspect, it invites sectarianism when money is already the universal religion, one China manipulates effectively.
I guess freedom truly has a price. Good to know...
The world needs people like Muhammad Ali who were willing to risk financial gain for justice.
The current world is full of celebrity hypocrites, e.g. Lebron James, Kaepernick, Steve Kerr, Merkel, Trump, and now even the Pope...
Please do explain how is Merkel the real thing? She is known in Germany to not offend anybody, because she doesn't do anything.
She doesn't dare raise a question to China and the genocide they are doing, but she is sure willing to insult Poland, or trash America because of Trump's tweets.
(1) Merkel is an accomplished scientist, Trump is a complete fraud.
(2) Merkel tends to act from her principles, Trump doesn't have any that I've been able to detect. You may not agree with those principles but at least she has them. I don't always agree with her either but I can actually follow her reasoning and understand why to her these things make sense.
(3) Merkel has an 88% approval rating from those in her own party, and 70%+ of those when polled across all of Germany.
(4) The EU, not Germany in particular should take a much stronger stance on Human Rights issues in China, but realpolitik unfortunately seems to stand in the way of this.
Insulting the Polish government (not Poland, you can't insult a country) is something that the Polish people that I know are going much further in than Merkel ever will, and with good reason. She doesn't trash America, she trashes Trump, and again, rightly so.
> (1) Merkel is an accomplished scientist, Trump is a complete fraud.
Trump is an accomplished businessman with a large array of enterprises built over ~50 years.
> (2) Merkel tends to act from her principles, Trump doesn't have any that I've been able to detect.
Trump's principles mean that he puts American interests first, even if it means being an bully about it. He has principles; whether they are good or bad is another question.
Trump being an accomplished businessman is up for debate, when you start with a large fortune and you keep it that way or shrink it you may have a lot of business but you are not very successful. Even doubling your money in 30 years is not 'good business'. Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Paul Graham and so on are 'good businessmen', Trump, not so much.
Trump puts his own interests first. He doesn't give a damn about America as such as long as it serves his interest. I would think that by now this was clear.
> Trump puts his own interests first. He doesn't give a damn about America as such as long as it serves his interest.
It would be in Trump's interest to not be controversial, as that would make it easier to be re-elected. Since Trump is rich, it would also be his (but not America's) interest to have a growing pool of cheap labor. A large part of his political platform is purposefully built to restrict the available labor pool (H1B limits, border wall).
Muhammad Ali's views about China & Vietnam/Vietcong
"I'm not gonna help nobody get something my negroes don't have. If I'm gonna die, I'll die now right here fighting you, if I'm gonna die. You my enemy. No Chinaman every called me a N or enslaved my people. My enemies are white people, not Viet Congs or Chinese or Japanese. You my opposer when I want freedom. You my opposer when I want justice. You my opposer when I want equality. You won't even stand up for me in America for my religious beliefs, and you want me to go somewhere and fight, but you won't even stand up for me here at home."
"Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on Brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? No I’m not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over. This is the day when such evils must come to an end. I have been warned that to take such a stand would cost me millions of dollars. But I have said it once and I will say it again. The real enemy of my people is here. I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice, freedom and equality. If I thought the war was going to bring freedom and equality to 22 million of my people they wouldn’t have to draft me, I’d join tomorrow. I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs. So I’ll go to jail, so what? We’ve been in jail for 400 years."
The discrimination the catholic church in China suffers is hardly talked about. The intimidation by the Chinese state on the church is incredible and many members have been killed or incarcerated for maintaining the independence of the church from the Chinese state.
On human terms it makes no sense to continue church operations in china just like some companies pulling out of china, but the church has not run on those terms.
For centuries the church and her members in China struggled to maintain their identity in the face of discrimination, and there has been progress even though small. I don't think it makes sense to let go of a winning strategy albeit a slow one given the conditions.
Churches and governments through the ages have always been at odds about this because both are power structures and the Chinese government - unlike many other governments - does not subscribe to any form of power sharing at all. If you look at the role of the Catholic church in Poland during the end of the Communist time then you can understand why: without support of the Church there is a good chance that Solidarity would have been nipped in the bud.
The state sanctioned church "Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association" has only in 2018 acknowledged that the Vatican can veto the appointment of their bishops.
I guess he did not want to upset them after this major concession.
I want to express an unpopular opinion. As someone who speaks Cantonese (same language used in Hong Kong), who was born on the mainland, who has a mainland wife, who was brought up with Hong Kong television and culture, who looked up to Hong Kong as a shining example for decades, I care about the Hong Kong topic deeply.
> Do you disagree with me? If so, I'd love to hear why. <
What I say will most likely not fit your understanding of the situation. I know it is tempting to dismiss me out of hand. However, I ask you to remain open minded. I don't just make a bunch of claims: I've provided arguments and sources. You don't have to agree with me, but I invite you to at least investigate my sources, and to discuss with me with arguments as well.
Here goes:
----
The Hong Kong "protests" are not about freedom or democracy. That's just a pretext for xenophobia, hate against mainlanders, and secessionism. Neither are they "peaceful".
Why do I say this? Everyone knows China is an authoritarian regime and everybody in the free world must stand up against the big baddy, right?
I used to be sympathetic to the Hong Kong protests. As someone who has lived in Europe for more than 25 years, I understand the importance of democracy. I used to call for mainlanders to be more understanding of the Hong Kong people's cause.
However, more and more evidence popped up that "freedom" and "democracy" are just excuses. The movement have long been hijacked by violent rioters who:
- Attack innocent civilians, whose only "crime" is that they disagree with the "pro-democracy" rioters. Famously, a man was literally burned alive[1] simply for disagreeing. In another case, a woman was gang-attacked by rioters[2] simply for removing roadblocks that the rioters put down to hinder the police.
- Vandalize public and private property. In particular, shops and businesses, whose owners are seen as not supportive of the "pro-democracy" movement, are vandalized. See for example [3], where rioters vandalized a bank. They later apologized for vandalizing "the wrong bank", meaning that it's okay to vandalize as long as it's the right target!
You might be wondering, how representative are the above examples? Could I have just cherry-picked a few violent cases to prove my point? Surely it's just a few bad apples, right?
The violence is widespread (although dying down since November after the police arrested a huge number of rioters, who sheltered in Hong Kong Polytec University and turned it into a bomb-making factory). It's not just "a few bad apples". Take a look at this compilation of rioters' violence: https://www.truth-hk.com/
Am I saying all Hong Kong protesters are rioters? No, man...
Being sick of the rioters and violence doesn't make you an expert in what a solution to rioting and violence is.
Don't blindly swallow what the CCP peddles as a solution.
It is an ancient unimaginative solution whose costs are a breakdown in trust between the people who don't bend easily and the govt. After you get rid of all those people what you are left with is a herd of obedient cattle.
And that herd is left weaker not stronger, a ripe target for domination from external threats.
I did not propose any specific solution. I am merely calling out the violence, hate and hypocrisy.
I also did not sign the petition. I am not a Hong Kong citizen. The Hong Kong citizen themselves signed the petition. If you disagree with that, you should tell them.
Read about the British and Gandhi. Specifically the Rowlatt Act. Violence will escalate given the choices China has made.
They were the sames choice the British made once upon a time.
Hong Kong will either get all its Gandhi's killed off and be subjugated. Or it will produce movements of the kind that happened in India that made the British leave.
The thing is, if a movement's participants cannot offer clear expression of reasonable demand, how does the society justify or condone it, especially given the rampage it caused against the civil rights of OTHER civilians?
So far the protesters' main demand has been "five demands, not one less", and they are:
- Full withdrawal of the extradition bill from the legislative process: already done.
- Retraction of the characterisation of the 12 June 2019 protests as "riots": such wording has no legal implication at all. There is no point in retracting a said word for that matter.
- Release and exoneration of arrested protesters: how is that fair to the victims who have been personally harmed, disabled, abused, and whose properties have been damaged?
- Establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into police behaviour: How is it fair to investigate only police behavior but not rioter behavior, esp foreign funding and assistance?
- Universal suffrage for the Legislative Council and the chief executive elections: the protesters demand universal voting with no strings attached, ignoring the stakes of all other stakeholders than themselves.
If we analyze these demands it becomes clear that at least one of them is clearly impossible in any society based on rule of law. Other demands may either be self-contradictory or impossible without proper political bargaining process.
> "C.Y. Leung, the former chief executive of Hong Kong and a vice chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, Beijing's top advisory council, had publicly threatened HSBC with a consumer boycott over its earlier reticence about the national security laws."
Hong Kong has a population of about 7.5 million, so there is no guarantee that the signers are the same people as the protesters. And if they are, that raises the question, did they really support it if they are actually on the streets opposing it?
The 3 million number is actually from two petitions, one offline (with 1.83m signatures) and the other online (with 1.08m signatures).[1] A similar petition purported to be signed by about 2500 entertainers was disavowed by some of the same entertainers who had supposedly signed it,[2] so I would be doubtful about the numbers.
I did not claim, nor do I believe, that the protesters and the security law supporters are the same group (even though there might be overlap, or people who changed opinion midway).
I will update my position about the security law to a more nuanced one. It's not so much that the Hong Kong people, on a whole, support the security law. It means that Hong Kong is divided. It also means that the mainstream media depiction that nearly all HK people oppose the security law, is equally false.
> Do you disagree with me? If so, I'd love to hear why.
Your comment is kind of long and you probably already had dozens of conversations like this without hearing any good arguments (otherwise you'd have changed your mind already), but okay.
> The Hong Kong "protests" are not about freedom or democracy. That's just a pretext for xenophobia, hate against mainlanders, and secessionism. Neither are they "peaceful".
What if there are multiple movements going on at the same? Those who want freedom and democracy, those who hate mainlanders, those who want to secede, those who enjoy violence and any combination of those. Does it detract from the position of those who peacefully demonstrate for democracy in all of China if there are others who attack mainlanders for xenophobic reasons?
> Am I saying all Hong Kong protesters are rioters? No, many are indeed peaceful. What I have a problem with, is that the western mainstream media uncritically paints all Hong Kong rioters as heroes.
Do they? I haven't seen any Western mainstream media describe setting people on fire as "heroic".
> Despite the fact that the entire movement have been hijacked by criminals
So what is it? Are many protesters peaceful or has the entire movement been hijacked? Or maybe even the peaceful ones are criminals, guilty by association?
> What freedoms are they fighting for, that they don't already have? Let's say they get universal suffrage. What's the first concrete thing they want to change? Strangely, most aren't able to answer.
You said you understand the importance of democracy. Yet you seem to think that universal suffrage would be useless for Hong Kongers because they're already free. What then is the importance of democracy? Would it only be apparent once they're no longer free? I also don't buy that they can't come up with anything concrete they'd change. It would probably be something different for every person you ask, but in my opinion the value of democracy lies in being able to discover the things that most people want to change.
> But notice how the protesters are repeating a mindless mantra, and are unable to engage in a rational discussion with good arguments.
I didn't bother to watch the video, but I guess they thought their arguments were good. I guess you think your arguments are good. Have you ever convinced anyone? Isn't it strange?
> We've seen rioters waving the UK and US flags[4]. There were even open calls for Trump (of all people!) to "liberate" them. Isn't that a bit strange?
Who else would be willing to help them? It's not like the People's "Liberation" Army is going to do their job. What's strange about trying to get as many powerful allies as possible?
> Think about: if China is so bad, why do hundreds of millions of Chinese travel abroad every year, and why does nearly everybody return willingly? Heck, why do I still visit China?
Oh, China isn't so bad, yeah. But think about it: millions of Hong Kongers are still living there. Apparently, to them, the riots aren't so bad that they would leave for the mainland. Isn't that strange?
> Why do some people want to secede? One reason is because they've been fed a lie about China: that it's a backwards, dystopian hellhole.
And you've been fed a lie that Hong Kong is a violent, dystopian hellhole. Neither is true.
> Can you imagine a text book asking, "what were the benefits from Nazi Germany's holocaust"?
As a German, I think it's funny you say that, because my textbooks spent a lot of time talking about how bad the Nazis were, yet "what were the benefits of Nazi rule?" was a question asked by the students who were capable of enough critical thought to realize that Nazi supporters must have had reasons for their support. So "what were the benefits from Japanese invasion to China in WWII?" is ...
>>Your comment is kind of long and you probably already had dozens of conversations like this without hearing any good arguments (otherwise you'd have changed your mind already), but okay.
I’d have to start by saying your arguments appear extremely similar to those I hear on the ground in HK, among my “yellow-ribbon” friends. But okay.
>>What if there are multiple movements going on at the same? Those who want freedom and democracy, those who hate mainlanders, those who want to secede, those who enjoy violence and any combination of those. Does it detract from the position of those who peacefully demonstrate for democracy in all of China if there are others who attack mainlanders for xenophobic reasons?
Yes there are. That is to be expected in any movement. However what is astounding and disturbing is the deliberate lack of moral compass in the movement, which OP did not adequately highlight. The problem is not that there aren’t peaceful members of the protest. The problem is that NONE of the prominent figures supporting the protest condemns violence and other crimes. In sharp contrast, many BLM leaders unequivocally condemn violence. They do so on TV, on Twitter, on MSM.. you name it. There has been a very famous slogan兄弟爬山，各自努力 – “as brothers we hike together yet make our own individual efforts”. Another famous line: “核爆都不割席” – “even if nuclear strikes were to land on our heads, we would never separate from each other or condemn each other’s actions”. I’m not sure whether you have heard of them but at least it gives an idea of what the real color of the movement is. When innocent civilians were beaten to a pulp, it is these ideals that keep the peaceful protesters refraining from condemning the apparent wrong doings of the violent factions, and compromising their own moral integrity in doing so.
>>Do they? I haven't seen any Western mainstream media describe setting people on fire as "heroic".
It would be moronic to show a video of violent rioters beating civilians to pulp while depicting it as fight for freedom. The MSM does this by editing videos of wrong doing, removing graphic violence and avoid showing their existence altogether.
>>So what is it? Are many protesters peaceful or has the entire movement been hijacked? Or maybe even the peaceful ones are criminals, guilty by association?
Yes, indeed, guilty by association because none of the peaceful protesters came out to condemn what was absolutely wrong that happened. What message does this give to bystanders? To people who disagree with them? For example, people fear that their identities might be doxed by the “peaceful protesters” and fed to the violent ones. Indeed it has been happening.
>>You said you understand the importance of democracy. Yet you seem to think that universal suffrage would be useless for Hong Kongers because they're already free. What then is the importance of democracy? Would it only be apparent once they're no longer free? I also don't buy that they can't come up with anything concrete they'd change. It would probably be something different for every person you ask, but in my opinion the value of democracy lies in being able to discover the things that most people want to change.
“the value of democracy lies in being able to discover the things that most people want to change”. Sounds good. Only that such democracy only applies to people who support the riots? What about people who stay in the middle or oppose?
Democratic discourse means different parties express their ideas in peaceful, rational debates. The rioters have no interest in debating anyone. The peaceful protesters have not written anything re how they will govern HK to make it a democratic paradise, to ensure people’s wellbeing and economic status, to make it a fair and equitable society. It has always been the simple conclusion “once democratic it will be all rainbows and fairies”. Indeed, on LIHKG there was a very famous thre...
> What if there are multiple movements going on at the same? Those who want freedom and democracy, those who hate mainlanders, those who want to secede, those who enjoy violence and any combination of those. Does it detract from the position of those who peacefully demonstrate for democracy in all of China if there are others who attack mainlanders for xenophobic reasons?
I agree with you. Hong Kong is not a monolith. It's normal for different people to have different opinions, and that there are multiple factions who want different things.
My point however is that all those other factions are taking a back seat. The rioting faction has been the most prominent one for a while now. They poison the well for everyone.
What's also weird is that none of the peaceful protesters condemned the violence. Peaceful Black Lives Matters protesters condemned rioters, so why did peaceful HK protesters not condemn rioters? More on this later.
What's more, for the most part, the mainstream media doesn't differentiate between those factions, nor do they condemn the rioters. The still paint the Hong Kong movement, on a whole, as that of "peaceful protesters want more freedom", ignoring the fact that the actual peaceful protesters have been taking a back seat for quite a while now. This is an inaccurate representation of reality.
All of the above, is what I mean by "hijacking".
I am not arguing that the true peaceful democracy protesters have no legitimacy. They have. Rioters do not detract from the position of true democracy protesters. But to pretend like only they exist, and that nothing else is going on, is disingenuous.
> Or maybe even the peaceful ones are criminals, guilty by association?
Some people (not me) say that peaceful protester are indeed complicit, simply for refusing to condemn the violence. However I've also heard that many peaceful protesters are afraid to speak up, for fear of retaliation from rioters.
> Do they? I haven't seen any Western mainstream media describe setting people on fire as "heroic".
That's not how it works. Western mainstream media portray rioters are heroic, by pretending that they do not exist, by hiding or downplaying their crimes. For example, the media edited the footage of that guy who was set on fire. They only show the footage up until right before the guy was set on fire, and then say that in this scene "pro-democracy and pro-Beijing people were having an argument".
Or more recently, a guy used his motorcycle to run over policemen. And yet, CNN downplayed that part and focused mostly on how scary the security law is, making it look like we should sympathize with that guy: https://twitter.com/cnni/status/1280071981447159808
> You said you understand the importance of democracy. Yet you seem to think that universal suffrage would be useless for Hong Kongers because they're already free. What then is the importance of democracy? Would it only be apparent once they're no longer free?
My point is not that democracy is useless because they are already free. My point is that, by not having an answer ready as to what they want to have improved in their lives, they are showing that they do not truly understand democracy.
If they don't truly understand democracy, then that means they are treating it as a panacea, a magic pill. How will treating democracy that way, result in good outcomes? Participating in democracy, and making it succeed, is hard work. It requires good-faith discussion, good-faith cooperation, making informed choices, voting based on good understanding of the situation.
Look at the middle-eastern countries, where democracy was forced upon a population with no prior experience or understanding of democracy: disastrous outcomes. A well-functioning democracy requires good un...
> Oh, China isn't so bad, yeah. But think about it: millions of Hong Kongers are still living there. Apparently, to them, the riots aren't so bad that they would leave for the mainland. Isn't that strange?
I have heard of many Hong Kongers who actually did leave for the mainland. Both during, and way before the protests. You never hear about them because they consider themselves Chinese, and so are indistinguishable from other Chinese.
But I don't have hard data for you, so take this as you will.
> As a German, I think it's funny you say that
All right. Encouraging critical thinking is a fair point. I encourage critical thinking.
I would assert that the example question I posted, is not one of educating critical thinking. It is of deliberately downplaying the value of the Chinese identity. I don't have a better source ready to prove this point, but if you are interested I could go look for some.
Furthermore, would you agree that the appropriateness of this question depends on the population? Would the Poles, French or the Jews of Israel appreciate such a question in their text books, and would they also agree that it's a normal question for the purpose of educating critical thinking?
> Do you think he has a chance of getting elected without universal suffrage?
I believe so.
The pro-democracy party won the recent district elections. This already shows that Beijing interferes way less with the democratic process in Hong Kong, than is popularly believed. Everybody was saying "Beijing would never allow it" and then it happened anyway.
I think people misread Beijing. In my opinion, they are not per se against democracy. They want to uphold national security, and they want to avoid damaging the interest of the rest of the country. If that's achieved, Hong Kongers can do all they want.
In the past, Beijing proposed a limited form of universal suffrage. People could choose from pre-screened candidates. Opponents said that this is fake universal suffrage, that all candidates are just puppets. From the perspective of Beijing, they want to make sure Hong Kong doesn't elect a secessionist.
Given that Hong Kong never had true universal suffrage anyway, not during British times nor after handover, I would say limited universal suffrage is still an improvement. And if Hong Kong shows that such a limited universal suffrage doesn't result in a bad outcome, I think it's likely that Beijing will relax the requirements even more in the future. It could be a viable path towards better and better universal suffrage.
I think that by misreading Beijing, and by insisting that they must be bad, Hong Kong wasted that chance. If Beijing really wants to clamp down on freedom they could have done it ages ago. Why would they even bother offering limited universal suffrage, if they could continue to govern Hong Kong the way the British did, namely with no universal suffrage at all?
I think that Beijing is far more willing to cooperate, to comprimise, than people give it credit for. That does not mean it is easy, but it is possible, given that one understands what Beijing's interests are, and what they will absolutely not compromise on.
> online signatures are too easy to fake
The petitions were offline.
> the majority did not sign in support. So you cannot claim that "the" people of Hong Kong agree with you, just that some do, which is less surprising
Agreed. But can't you apply this logic to the protest movements too? Hong Kong has 7.5 million people. The high estimation of 2 million people who joined the protests, did not constitute the majority either. So why paint the situation as "the Hong Kong people want democracy"?
What matters to me is that there are more signatures than people who joined the protests. It's true that their motivations may be different from mine. But still: they signed it.
> I don't think what I said above changed your mind about anything.
My take from your post is that you now see yourself as better than the Hong Kongers you once admired when you were younger. You were never really sympathetic, you just respected HK's wealth, and the power that came with it, until you realized that they no longer have that power. Now that it's been superseded by the mainland, your respect has been replaced with disdain.
>Racism against mainlanders is rampant
That isn't racism. The vast majority of Hong Kongers are the same race as the vast majority of Mainlanders. I don't know what the correct word is.
You are ignoring the primary reason HKers are rioting. Upward mobility in HK is hampered despite it being a world-class city with a highly educated populace.
Many people in HK feel hopeless living in a society where they have to work insane hours and still can't afford property in a culture that places a very high value on owning it. Hundreds of thousands of young HKers want to leave, but can't (at least not for anywhere they would want to emigrate to).
I believe there would have been riots even if the accelerated transition was not an issue. It just happened to be the tipping point that set an extremely frustrated and angry youth population off.
> My take from your post is that you now see yourself as better than the Hong Kongers you once admired when you were younger. You were never really sympathetic, you just respected HK's wealth, and the power that came with it, until you realized that they no longer have that power. Now that it's been superseded by the mainland, your respect has been replaced with disdain.
This is false. I do not understand why you got this from my post.
Before the 2019 protests happened, I thought highly of Hong Kongers. When the protests started, I still thought highly of Hong Kongers. Only after I've seen evidence of irrationality, of moves that make no sense, of violence against innocent people, did I start to have a bad opinion of those who support secessionism and xenophobia.
> This isn't racism [...] I don't know what the correct word is.
Agreed with this point. Let's call it xenophobia.
> You are ignoring the primary reason HKers are rioting. Upward mobility in HK is hampered despite it being a world-class city with a highly educated populace.
I am not ignoring it, but I will admit that my essay did not make that point clear.
You are completely correct in saying that upward mobility is a big factor. See also this reply in which I explicitly pointed that out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23769808
The problem with the upward mobility issue is: why do the protesters not talk about this? The upward mobility problem was not caused by Beijing, it's caused by Hong Kong's own elites, whose power was derived from the British system which Beijing did not change. So why protest against Beijing?
Do they think Beijing is the source of all their suffering? Do they think democracy and freedom is a magic pill for all those problems? Why not talk about the actual problems? Why have there been no attempts to address those actual problems together with Beijing?
Such a transparent scam. It's like Disney removing black actor in the Chinese Star Wars poster, while lecturing the US audience on racial justice: https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/asia/star-wars-china-racist-p..., or LeBron James carrying water for the Chinese when discussing Hong Kong.
Given how wealthy and powerful the Catholic church is, and how much the people who run the church would like it to stay that way, I suspect it's not just Scenario 2.
The Catholic church doesn’t globally pool their wealth.
“ In 2010, the Vatican had an income of $326 million and ran a $13 million budget surplus, but in 2011 the Vatican ran a $19 million deficit. And while some of that money obviously went to maintaining church buildings and art, much of it also went to charitable causes.
Recent re-evaluations of Vatican assets show that the Vatican has approximately $1 billion in total assets. For comparison, Harvard University’s endowment is over $30 billion. So, relatively speaking, the Catholic Church is not really wealthy, and no one blames museums for maintaining their art work and structures. “
The Vatican owns more than 71,659,919 hectares of land around the world, mostly in prime areas of cities. A single hectare in London is worth 7 or 8 million dollars alone. Then there's the massive amounts of gold, buildings, art, etc on top. I can believe the Vatican itself, as in the tiny city state in Italy, is worth $1bn, but the Catholic Church owns hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets. If they evaluated it all at just $1bn then they lied.
You might be confusing the Vatican with the Catholic Church.
It's a semantic difference that has no real meaning. Every Catholic church organisation answers to the Vatican. Treating them separately is like treating Apple, Apple UK, and Apple Ireland separately because no, really, they are different legal entities honest.
> The Vatican owns more than 71,659,919 hectares of land around the world
No, it doesn't.
Catholic institutions do, perhaps, but the relationship between other Catholic institutions and the Holy See is complicated, both legally and by tradition and more practical concerns.
> I can believe the Vatican itself, as in the tiny city state in Italy, is worth $1bn
I think the reference here to the Vatican is to Holy See, of which the State of Vatican City is a subordinate component.
> but the Catholic Church owns hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets
The Catholic Church is not, as such, a juridical entity and thus, as such, does not have the capacity to own anything.
100 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_(antiquity)
They also have a lot of shelters for homeless and others in need of help in my country without any missionary ambitions (today at least, historically it was for missionary purposes). They help out where the state fails and it fails a lot.
Still the institution of the roman catholic church and christians are not synonymous to me. And any form of criticism is certainly directed at the churches power structures, not at their priests. I think the current pope is quite nice, but I disagree with him here.
Edit: ya know, this is probably an excellent idea for the church. Every extra Chinese Catholic is someone who will likely ultimately accept the Pope’s authority over the CCP’s, regardless of if there are CCP friendly bishops. Get a big enough beachhead amongst poor Chinese, and bide their time, and they’re probably on to something.
Nah probably more the year 16-26 AD. ;)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Already done since 70 years ago.
* Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Patriotic_Catholic_Ass...
> The Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, abbreviated CPA, CPCA or CCPA, is an organization established in 1957 by the People's Republic of China's Religious Affairs Bureau to supervise mainland China's Catholics. It is the only organizational body of Catholics in China officially recognized by the government of the People's Republic of China, but is not recognized by the Vatican.
> In his encyclical Ad Apostolorum principis of 29 July 1958, Pope Pius XII deplored the attitude and activities of the Association and declared the bishops who participated in consecrating new bishops selected by the Association to be excommunicated. Pope Benedict XVI referred to the agents of the Association as people who, though not ordained priests and sometimes not baptized, "control and take decisions concerning important ecclesial questions, including the appointment of bishops." The organization is overseen by the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China following the State Administration for Religious Affairs' absorption into the United Front Work Department in 2018.
* Three-Self Patriotic Movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Self_Patriotic_Movement
> The Three-Self Patriotic Movement is a Protestant organization in the People's Republic of China, and one of the largest Protestant bodies in the world. It is colloquially known as the Three-Self Church.
> In May 1950, Y. T. Wu and other prominent Protestant leaders such as T. C. Chao, Chen Chonggui, and Cora Deng met in Beijing with Zhou Enlai to discuss Protestant Christianity's relationship with the young People's Republic of China. "The Christian Manifesto" was published in July 1950 and its original title was "Direction of Endeavor for Chinese Christianity in the Construction of New China." During the 1950s, 400,000 Protestant Christians publicly endorsed and signed this document.
> The purpose of publishing this document was: to heighten our vigilance against imperialism, to make known the clear political stand of Christians in New China, to hasten the building of a Chinese church whose affairs are managed by the Chinese themselves, and to indicate the responsibilities that should be taken up by Christians throughout the whole country in national reconstruction in New China.
> It further stated the movement promoted the "self-governance, self-support, and self-propagation" of the Chinese church.
"And if you tolerate this, then your children will be next"
And in a more serious note, from "First they came.." [1]. It is about the cowardice of German intellectuals and certain clergy (including, by his own admission, Niemöller himself) following the Nazis' rise to power and subsequent incremental purging of their chosen targets, group after group.:
First they came for the Communists - And I did not speak out - Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists - And I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists - And I did not speak out - Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews - And I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me - And there was no one left - To speak out for me
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Perhaps they just felt that making such public comments would achieve nothing apart from undoing that work.
The Catholic Church has been around for almost 2,000 years. I'm sure they know how to play a long game.
If that were the case, the Vatican should have been among the first to switch recognition from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the PRC, but instead, it is the only remaining European state that still maintains full diplomatic relations with Taiwan.[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Taiwan#Eu...
They probably picked them after their last relationship, which was about touting the US during the cold war, and working with the far-right to stir hysteria in Italy. How the tides turn...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1633884783/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
But yeah, I think Putin gave up on internationalism back in the 2000s.
I also wouldn't want to be Mongolia. There's a potential that China will leave Mongolia intact as a buffer with the long Russian border. If China wants to expand its territory, there's no easier, larger target than Mongolia (17/18th largest nation by land with only 3m people and essentially no military ability to defend itself).
My (limited) understanding is that Mongolia is mostly steppe, and the Mongolians have several thousand years of claim to the land, neither of which is true of — say — Outer Manchuria. Russia will struggle to get much sympathy if the Chinese execute a “Crimean Gambit” there.
https://www.reddit.com/r/KireMama/duplicates/hda8kq/south_as...
Frankly, we all collectively should be downright ashamed of Trump being the leader of the most influential country in the world, the fact that this happened is a terrible strike against this particular form of democracy. The damage done will take decades to repair, and likely America's reputation in the world will never recover to the point that it was at before Trump pulled his coup of the Republican party.
Granted, but that's true of almost all of any politician's work. Kinda makes the point that it's not all bad, eh?
"America's reputation in the world" - give me a break. Out here, in the rest of the world, we don't really care. America really isn't (or ever was) the bright shining light the world looks to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_China
What about Jesus? lol
What is left of the catholic church if you reject the pope?
Protestants
> Protestants
I think you mean “Eastern Orthodox”, as they both were rejecting the primacy (at least, in the terms Catholics define it) of the Pope long before Protestants existed and remain closer to the Roman Catholics on most points other than the primacy of the Pope than Protestants, who reject a lot more about Catholicism than the role of the Pope.
Over millenia, Chinese rulers of each dynasty have worked to establish legitimacy.
After you have that mandate, your rule cannot be questioned.
So having independent religious leaders raises questions over who is really in charge.
Similarly, the underlying reason China cannot tolerate Taiwan independence is that it shows an alternate world to the CCP.
On religion, just the opposite if you go by Buddhism numbers, +200m since cultural revolution. I've read that China wants to promote religion with Chinese characteristics as a foreign policy tool. Countries along the Belt & Road in China's sphere of influence are religious - being able to send out Chinese representatives with shared religious background might be beneficial. Maybe Chinese missionaries could even disseminate religion with Chinese characteristics. On top of internal stability, behind the elevated repression happening in XJ and Tibet are efforts to sinicize the major religions in terms of physical design (symbolism, architecture) and political structure to harmonize with Chinese society. Maybe there's a generalized "socialist" package for authoritarian governments to export. Though I find this thesis suspect, it invites sectarianism when money is already the universal religion, one China manipulates effectively.
She doesn't dare raise a question to China and the genocide they are doing, but she is sure willing to insult Poland, or trash America because of Trump's tweets.
(2) Merkel tends to act from her principles, Trump doesn't have any that I've been able to detect. You may not agree with those principles but at least she has them. I don't always agree with her either but I can actually follow her reasoning and understand why to her these things make sense.
(3) Merkel has an 88% approval rating from those in her own party, and 70%+ of those when polled across all of Germany.
(4) The EU, not Germany in particular should take a much stronger stance on Human Rights issues in China, but realpolitik unfortunately seems to stand in the way of this.
Insulting the Polish government (not Poland, you can't insult a country) is something that the Polish people that I know are going much further in than Merkel ever will, and with good reason. She doesn't trash America, she trashes Trump, and again, rightly so.
Trump is an accomplished businessman with a large array of enterprises built over ~50 years.
> (2) Merkel tends to act from her principles, Trump doesn't have any that I've been able to detect.
Trump's principles mean that he puts American interests first, even if it means being an bully about it. He has principles; whether they are good or bad is another question.
Trump puts his own interests first. He doesn't give a damn about America as such as long as it serves his interest. I would think that by now this was clear.
It would be in Trump's interest to not be controversial, as that would make it easier to be re-elected. Since Trump is rich, it would also be his (but not America's) interest to have a growing pool of cheap labor. A large part of his political platform is purposefully built to restrict the available labor pool (H1B limits, border wall).
"I'm not gonna help nobody get something my negroes don't have. If I'm gonna die, I'll die now right here fighting you, if I'm gonna die. You my enemy. No Chinaman every called me a N or enslaved my people. My enemies are white people, not Viet Congs or Chinese or Japanese. You my opposer when I want freedom. You my opposer when I want justice. You my opposer when I want equality. You won't even stand up for me in America for my religious beliefs, and you want me to go somewhere and fight, but you won't even stand up for me here at home."
"Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on Brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? No I’m not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over. This is the day when such evils must come to an end. I have been warned that to take such a stand would cost me millions of dollars. But I have said it once and I will say it again. The real enemy of my people is here. I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice, freedom and equality. If I thought the war was going to bring freedom and equality to 22 million of my people they wouldn’t have to draft me, I’d join tomorrow. I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs. So I’ll go to jail, so what? We’ve been in jail for 400 years."
On human terms it makes no sense to continue church operations in china just like some companies pulling out of china, but the church has not run on those terms.
For centuries the church and her members in China struggled to maintain their identity in the face of discrimination, and there has been progress even though small. I don't think it makes sense to let go of a winning strategy albeit a slow one given the conditions.
I guess he did not want to upset them after this major concession.
> Do you disagree with me? If so, I'd love to hear why. <
What I say will most likely not fit your understanding of the situation. I know it is tempting to dismiss me out of hand. However, I ask you to remain open minded. I don't just make a bunch of claims: I've provided arguments and sources. You don't have to agree with me, but I invite you to at least investigate my sources, and to discuss with me with arguments as well.
Here goes:
----
The Hong Kong "protests" are not about freedom or democracy. That's just a pretext for xenophobia, hate against mainlanders, and secessionism. Neither are they "peaceful".
Why do I say this? Everyone knows China is an authoritarian regime and everybody in the free world must stand up against the big baddy, right?
I used to be sympathetic to the Hong Kong protests. As someone who has lived in Europe for more than 25 years, I understand the importance of democracy. I used to call for mainlanders to be more understanding of the Hong Kong people's cause.
However, more and more evidence popped up that "freedom" and "democracy" are just excuses. The movement have long been hijacked by violent rioters who:
- Attack innocent civilians, whose only "crime" is that they disagree with the "pro-democracy" rioters. Famously, a man was literally burned alive[1] simply for disagreeing. In another case, a woman was gang-attacked by rioters[2] simply for removing roadblocks that the rioters put down to hinder the police.
- Vandalize public and private property. In particular, shops and businesses, whose owners are seen as not supportive of the "pro-democracy" movement, are vandalized. See for example [3], where rioters vandalized a bank. They later apologized for vandalizing "the wrong bank", meaning that it's okay to vandalize as long as it's the right target!
[1] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/30...
[2] https://www.scmp.com/video/hong-kong/3085864/online-video-fo...
[3] https://mothership.sg/2019/10/news-hong-kong-protest-east-as...
RECOMMENDED:
Have a look at this letter from a Hong Kong resident, explaining the situation much better than I do:
https://thefinanser.com/2020/07/am-i-wrong-about-hong-kong.h...
You might be wondering, how representative are the above examples? Could I have just cherry-picked a few violent cases to prove my point? Surely it's just a few bad apples, right?
The violence is widespread (although dying down since November after the police arrested a huge number of rioters, who sheltered in Hong Kong Polytec University and turned it into a bomb-making factory). It's not just "a few bad apples". Take a look at this compilation of rioters' violence: https://www.truth-hk.com/
Am I saying all Hong Kong protesters are rioters? No, man...
Don't blindly swallow what the CCP peddles as a solution. It is an ancient unimaginative solution whose costs are a breakdown in trust between the people who don't bend easily and the govt. After you get rid of all those people what you are left with is a herd of obedient cattle.
And that herd is left weaker not stronger, a ripe target for domination from external threats.
I also did not sign the petition. I am not a Hong Kong citizen. The Hong Kong citizen themselves signed the petition. If you disagree with that, you should tell them.
Will you condemn the violence?
They were the sames choice the British made once upon a time.
Hong Kong will either get all its Gandhi's killed off and be subjugated. Or it will produce movements of the kind that happened in India that made the British leave.
So far the protesters' main demand has been "five demands, not one less", and they are: - Full withdrawal of the extradition bill from the legislative process: already done. - Retraction of the characterisation of the 12 June 2019 protests as "riots": such wording has no legal implication at all. There is no point in retracting a said word for that matter. - Release and exoneration of arrested protesters: how is that fair to the victims who have been personally harmed, disabled, abused, and whose properties have been damaged? - Establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into police behaviour: How is it fair to investigate only police behavior but not rioter behavior, esp foreign funding and assistance? - Universal suffrage for the Legislative Council and the chief executive elections: the protesters demand universal voting with no strings attached, ignoring the stakes of all other stakeholders than themselves. If we analyze these demands it becomes clear that at least one of them is clearly impossible in any society based on rule of law. Other demands may either be self-contradictory or impossible without proper political bargaining process.
Are they not protesting against the erosion of those freedoms via the new security laws?
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Finance/HSBC-takes-fire-fro...
> "C.Y. Leung, the former chief executive of Hong Kong and a vice chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, Beijing's top advisory council, had publicly threatened HSBC with a consumer boycott over its earlier reticence about the national security laws."
People love security laws...
The 3 million number is actually from two petitions, one offline (with 1.83m signatures) and the other online (with 1.08m signatures).[1] A similar petition purported to be signed by about 2500 entertainers was disavowed by some of the same entertainers who had supposedly signed it,[2] so I would be doubtful about the numbers.
1. https://parstoday.com/en/news/world-i122011-nearly_3_million...
2. https://hongkongfp.com/2020/06/02/artists-deny-signing-petit...
I did not claim, nor do I believe, that the protesters and the security law supporters are the same group (even though there might be overlap, or people who changed opinion midway).
I will update my position about the security law to a more nuanced one. It's not so much that the Hong Kong people, on a whole, support the security law. It means that Hong Kong is divided. It also means that the mainstream media depiction that nearly all HK people oppose the security law, is equally false.
Your comment is kind of long and you probably already had dozens of conversations like this without hearing any good arguments (otherwise you'd have changed your mind already), but okay.
> The Hong Kong "protests" are not about freedom or democracy. That's just a pretext for xenophobia, hate against mainlanders, and secessionism. Neither are they "peaceful".
What if there are multiple movements going on at the same? Those who want freedom and democracy, those who hate mainlanders, those who want to secede, those who enjoy violence and any combination of those. Does it detract from the position of those who peacefully demonstrate for democracy in all of China if there are others who attack mainlanders for xenophobic reasons?
> Am I saying all Hong Kong protesters are rioters? No, many are indeed peaceful. What I have a problem with, is that the western mainstream media uncritically paints all Hong Kong rioters as heroes.
Do they? I haven't seen any Western mainstream media describe setting people on fire as "heroic".
> Despite the fact that the entire movement have been hijacked by criminals
So what is it? Are many protesters peaceful or has the entire movement been hijacked? Or maybe even the peaceful ones are criminals, guilty by association?
> What freedoms are they fighting for, that they don't already have? Let's say they get universal suffrage. What's the first concrete thing they want to change? Strangely, most aren't able to answer.
You said you understand the importance of democracy. Yet you seem to think that universal suffrage would be useless for Hong Kongers because they're already free. What then is the importance of democracy? Would it only be apparent once they're no longer free? I also don't buy that they can't come up with anything concrete they'd change. It would probably be something different for every person you ask, but in my opinion the value of democracy lies in being able to discover the things that most people want to change.
> But notice how the protesters are repeating a mindless mantra, and are unable to engage in a rational discussion with good arguments.
I didn't bother to watch the video, but I guess they thought their arguments were good. I guess you think your arguments are good. Have you ever convinced anyone? Isn't it strange?
> We've seen rioters waving the UK and US flags[4]. There were even open calls for Trump (of all people!) to "liberate" them. Isn't that a bit strange?
Who else would be willing to help them? It's not like the People's "Liberation" Army is going to do their job. What's strange about trying to get as many powerful allies as possible?
> Think about: if China is so bad, why do hundreds of millions of Chinese travel abroad every year, and why does nearly everybody return willingly? Heck, why do I still visit China?
Oh, China isn't so bad, yeah. But think about it: millions of Hong Kongers are still living there. Apparently, to them, the riots aren't so bad that they would leave for the mainland. Isn't that strange?
> Why do some people want to secede? One reason is because they've been fed a lie about China: that it's a backwards, dystopian hellhole.
And you've been fed a lie that Hong Kong is a violent, dystopian hellhole. Neither is true.
> Can you imagine a text book asking, "what were the benefits from Nazi Germany's holocaust"?
As a German, I think it's funny you say that, because my textbooks spent a lot of time talking about how bad the Nazis were, yet "what were the benefits of Nazi rule?" was a question asked by the students who were capable of enough critical thought to realize that Nazi supporters must have had reasons for their support. So "what were the benefits from Japanese invasion to China in WWII?" is ...
> What if there are multiple movements going on at the same? Those who want freedom and democracy, those who hate mainlanders, those who want to secede, those who enjoy violence and any combination of those. Does it detract from the position of those who peacefully demonstrate for democracy in all of China if there are others who attack mainlanders for xenophobic reasons?
I agree with you. Hong Kong is not a monolith. It's normal for different people to have different opinions, and that there are multiple factions who want different things.
My point however is that all those other factions are taking a back seat. The rioting faction has been the most prominent one for a while now. They poison the well for everyone.
What's also weird is that none of the peaceful protesters condemned the violence. Peaceful Black Lives Matters protesters condemned rioters, so why did peaceful HK protesters not condemn rioters? More on this later.
What's more, for the most part, the mainstream media doesn't differentiate between those factions, nor do they condemn the rioters. The still paint the Hong Kong movement, on a whole, as that of "peaceful protesters want more freedom", ignoring the fact that the actual peaceful protesters have been taking a back seat for quite a while now. This is an inaccurate representation of reality.
All of the above, is what I mean by "hijacking".
I am not arguing that the true peaceful democracy protesters have no legitimacy. They have. Rioters do not detract from the position of true democracy protesters. But to pretend like only they exist, and that nothing else is going on, is disingenuous.
> Or maybe even the peaceful ones are criminals, guilty by association?
Some people (not me) say that peaceful protester are indeed complicit, simply for refusing to condemn the violence. However I've also heard that many peaceful protesters are afraid to speak up, for fear of retaliation from rioters.
> Do they? I haven't seen any Western mainstream media describe setting people on fire as "heroic".
That's not how it works. Western mainstream media portray rioters are heroic, by pretending that they do not exist, by hiding or downplaying their crimes. For example, the media edited the footage of that guy who was set on fire. They only show the footage up until right before the guy was set on fire, and then say that in this scene "pro-democracy and pro-Beijing people were having an argument".
Or more recently, a guy used his motorcycle to run over policemen. And yet, CNN downplayed that part and focused mostly on how scary the security law is, making it look like we should sympathize with that guy: https://twitter.com/cnni/status/1280071981447159808
> You said you understand the importance of democracy. Yet you seem to think that universal suffrage would be useless for Hong Kongers because they're already free. What then is the importance of democracy? Would it only be apparent once they're no longer free?
My point is not that democracy is useless because they are already free. My point is that, by not having an answer ready as to what they want to have improved in their lives, they are showing that they do not truly understand democracy.
If they don't truly understand democracy, then that means they are treating it as a panacea, a magic pill. How will treating democracy that way, result in good outcomes? Participating in democracy, and making it succeed, is hard work. It requires good-faith discussion, good-faith cooperation, making informed choices, voting based on good understanding of the situation.
Look at the middle-eastern countries, where democracy was forced upon a population with no prior experience or understanding of democracy: disastrous outcomes. A well-functioning democracy requires good un...
> Oh, China isn't so bad, yeah. But think about it: millions of Hong Kongers are still living there. Apparently, to them, the riots aren't so bad that they would leave for the mainland. Isn't that strange?
I have heard of many Hong Kongers who actually did leave for the mainland. Both during, and way before the protests. You never hear about them because they consider themselves Chinese, and so are indistinguishable from other Chinese.
But I don't have hard data for you, so take this as you will.
> As a German, I think it's funny you say that
All right. Encouraging critical thinking is a fair point. I encourage critical thinking.
I would assert that the example question I posted, is not one of educating critical thinking. It is of deliberately downplaying the value of the Chinese identity. I don't have a better source ready to prove this point, but if you are interested I could go look for some.
Furthermore, would you agree that the appropriateness of this question depends on the population? Would the Poles, French or the Jews of Israel appreciate such a question in their text books, and would they also agree that it's a normal question for the purpose of educating critical thinking?
> Do you think he has a chance of getting elected without universal suffrage?
I believe so.
The pro-democracy party won the recent district elections. This already shows that Beijing interferes way less with the democratic process in Hong Kong, than is popularly believed. Everybody was saying "Beijing would never allow it" and then it happened anyway.
I think people misread Beijing. In my opinion, they are not per se against democracy. They want to uphold national security, and they want to avoid damaging the interest of the rest of the country. If that's achieved, Hong Kongers can do all they want.
In the past, Beijing proposed a limited form of universal suffrage. People could choose from pre-screened candidates. Opponents said that this is fake universal suffrage, that all candidates are just puppets. From the perspective of Beijing, they want to make sure Hong Kong doesn't elect a secessionist.
Given that Hong Kong never had true universal suffrage anyway, not during British times nor after handover, I would say limited universal suffrage is still an improvement. And if Hong Kong shows that such a limited universal suffrage doesn't result in a bad outcome, I think it's likely that Beijing will relax the requirements even more in the future. It could be a viable path towards better and better universal suffrage.
I think that by misreading Beijing, and by insisting that they must be bad, Hong Kong wasted that chance. If Beijing really wants to clamp down on freedom they could have done it ages ago. Why would they even bother offering limited universal suffrage, if they could continue to govern Hong Kong the way the British did, namely with no universal suffrage at all?
I think that Beijing is far more willing to cooperate, to comprimise, than people give it credit for. That does not mean it is easy, but it is possible, given that one understands what Beijing's interests are, and what they will absolutely not compromise on.
> online signatures are too easy to fake
The petitions were offline.
> the majority did not sign in support. So you cannot claim that "the" people of Hong Kong agree with you, just that some do, which is less surprising
Agreed. But can't you apply this logic to the protest movements too? Hong Kong has 7.5 million people. The high estimation of 2 million people who joined the protests, did not constitute the majority either. So why paint the situation as "the Hong Kong people want democracy"?
What matters to me is that there are more signatures than people who joined the protests. It's true that their motivations may be different from mine. But still: they signed it.
> I don't think what I said above changed your mind about anything.
You did make...
>Racism against mainlanders is rampant
That isn't racism. The vast majority of Hong Kongers are the same race as the vast majority of Mainlanders. I don't know what the correct word is.
You are ignoring the primary reason HKers are rioting. Upward mobility in HK is hampered despite it being a world-class city with a highly educated populace.
Many people in HK feel hopeless living in a society where they have to work insane hours and still can't afford property in a culture that places a very high value on owning it. Hundreds of thousands of young HKers want to leave, but can't (at least not for anywhere they would want to emigrate to).
I believe there would have been riots even if the accelerated transition was not an issue. It just happened to be the tipping point that set an extremely frustrated and angry youth population off.
This is false. I do not understand why you got this from my post.
Before the 2019 protests happened, I thought highly of Hong Kongers. When the protests started, I still thought highly of Hong Kongers. Only after I've seen evidence of irrationality, of moves that make no sense, of violence against innocent people, did I start to have a bad opinion of those who support secessionism and xenophobia.
> This isn't racism [...] I don't know what the correct word is.
Agreed with this point. Let's call it xenophobia.
> You are ignoring the primary reason HKers are rioting. Upward mobility in HK is hampered despite it being a world-class city with a highly educated populace.
I am not ignoring it, but I will admit that my essay did not make that point clear.
You are completely correct in saying that upward mobility is a big factor. See also this reply in which I explicitly pointed that out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23769808
The problem with the upward mobility issue is: why do the protesters not talk about this? The upward mobility problem was not caused by Beijing, it's caused by Hong Kong's own elites, whose power was derived from the British system which Beijing did not change. So why protest against Beijing?
Do they think Beijing is the source of all their suffering? Do they think democracy and freedom is a magic pill for all those problems? Why not talk about the actual problems? Why have there been no attempts to address those actual problems together with Beijing?
e.g. consider the act of paying a bribe.
Scenario 1: You pay the bribe and make 10x the amount due to faster govt. processing.
Scenario 2: You pay the bribe to save someones life who will die otherwise.
Paying the bribe in Scenario 1 is immoral and paying in Scenario 2 is moral.
Dealing with China is more akin to Scenario 2.
The Catholic church is the oldest institution in the world, it knows it can wait.
“ In 2010, the Vatican had an income of $326 million and ran a $13 million budget surplus, but in 2011 the Vatican ran a $19 million deficit. And while some of that money obviously went to maintaining church buildings and art, much of it also went to charitable causes.
Recent re-evaluations of Vatican assets show that the Vatican has approximately $1 billion in total assets. For comparison, Harvard University’s endowment is over $30 billion. So, relatively speaking, the Catholic Church is not really wealthy, and no one blames museums for maintaining their art work and structures. “
It's a semantic difference that has no real meaning. Every Catholic church organisation answers to the Vatican. Treating them separately is like treating Apple, Apple UK, and Apple Ireland separately because no, really, they are different legal entities honest.
No, it doesn't.
Catholic institutions do, perhaps, but the relationship between other Catholic institutions and the Holy See is complicated, both legally and by tradition and more practical concerns.
> I can believe the Vatican itself, as in the tiny city state in Italy, is worth $1bn
I think the reference here to the Vatican is to Holy See, of which the State of Vatican City is a subordinate component.
> but the Catholic Church owns hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets
The Catholic Church is not, as such, a juridical entity and thus, as such, does not have the capacity to own anything.