The fact that Hong Kong was coerced and forced into this "nation" (China is not a nation nor a nation-state) using false promises, threats and lies about ethnical and cultural similarity. Hongkongers are a separate group from what people call Chinese (which mostly meant Han in ethnocultural contexts and is now moving to mean 'the new Chinese person'), they speak a different language and have their own culture, ideas about politics and governance, etc.
> Hong Kong was coerced and forced into this "nation" (China is not a nation nor a nation-state) using false promises, threats and lies about ethnical and cultural similarity.
This statement is full of factual inaccuracies, and historically incorrect lies. No, HK was not "coerced and forced" to return to China, it returned because of a joint agreement between China and UK. Yes, China is a nation and nation state. No there was no false promises, threats nor lies. Everything was said in advance, in the Joint Declaration before 1997, and further elaborated in the Basic Law. Both of these documents you can read online in Chinese and English and see this is the case. The lack of knowledge about the legal basis of HK is one of the ways people are tricked into believing crazy stuff like in this comment. But it seems nobody is content to argue about the actual factual historical legal documents. They want to make up crazy ideologies and fight as if that's true. No wonder there is so much nonsense about this issue.
The statement also invokes some crazy nonsense about Chinese "ethnic and racial purity". China has quite a bit of diversity of ethnic groups, and southern Chinese from Pearl River Delta region, and HK and Macau look a bit different, and talk differently to peoples from the North, at least "in general". But there are many regional dialects and customs in China, having such does not make HKers or Canton people more unique than, say, Sichuan or Shanghai people. But that has no relevance to the question of national borders. And these statements sounds scarily like they take the idea of racial purity as some sort of geographic organizing principle. Would sort of be like Bostonian Irish wanting to secede to create a racially pure enclave in the Hamptons.
It's odd how backward this comment is...there is racism, and forcing and coercion in HK's past, but from Brits who coerced China into giving up this region, using guns, in (what is literally called) "The Unequal Treaty" (of Nanking), and forced HKers to accept British rule, and often to work and live like slaves. Without any other info, these sorts of nonsense statements sound like guilty Brits trying to whitewash their colonial history with this ridiculous (and basically racist) claptrap, like in this comment. Even after 170+ years, are Westerns are still trying to meddle and tell Chinese people what is what? If that is so...it's path-etic.
Surely the opposing arguments to the case laid out in the article are better than this? If you're reading this please don't embarrass yourself by being duped into supporting ahistorical (and frankly racist) nonsense like this. If you are opposed to HK and China shared trajectory, at least have the respect to think critically and thoughtfully about it, and have the courage to face the facts.
I am aware of all the legal documents you mentioned, including the Nanking treaty and the variously amended agreements from the 90's. You are correct that initially the Brits took the Hong Kong land and people by force from the Qing dynasty (not from "the Chinese", the Chinese were subjects of an absolutist monarchy - as compared to e.g. British subjects that had a much better position and being a British subject was even considered a privilege; note that later Hongkongers often considered it a privilege too). That doesn't change anything about the fact that modern Hongkongers are a distinct group of people that would prefer to have their own state - many Hongkongers of today would actually prefer a modern version of British protectorate, regardless of how unjustified and unwanted it was at the time of its original establishment. That the Hongkongers would prefer a completely foreign ruler is very telling about China.
> Everything was said in advance, in the Joint Declaration before 1997, and further elaborated in the Basic Law. Both of these documents you can read online in Chinese and English and see this is the case. The lack of knowledge about the legal basis of HK is one of the ways people are tricked into believing crazy stuff like in this comment. But it seems nobody is content to argue about the actual factual historical legal documents.
Were the people deciding, or was it decided for them? Did their government (the UK) act by itself or because it was threatened? Perhaps that is why we're ignoring the legal documents - and as always what two superpowers decided between them might have no relevance to the actual wishes of the people on that land, as you said yourself.
Additionally, you should re-read the document - the Chinese state is blatantly violating the agreement that was to expire in 2047.
> China is a nation and nation state.
Did the people agree to it before they were "re-educated" in death camps? Do they even agree to it today?
> China has quite a bit of diversity of ethnic groups, and southern Chinese from Pearl River Delta region, and HK and Macau look a bit different, and talk differently to peoples from the North, at least "in general". But there are many regional dialects and customs in China, having such does not make HKers or Canton people more unique than, say, Sichuan or Shanghai people.
You're contradicting the previous statement. It has everything to do with national borders when these are the things that define the nation in the minds of the people we're talking about.
I never said it makes Hongkongers more unique, I don't think it does. Secession of e.g. Sichuan from China is impossible at this point in time though and not that wanted by the people there, so no point in talking about them in this discussion.
> And these statements sounds scarily like they take the idea of racial purity as some sort of geographic organizing principle.
Heh, that is exactly what the Chinese Communist party is doing and what I am opposed to. They're building the concept of "the new Chinese person" which everybody should subscribe to, and they're using this new "Chinese nationality" as a justification of their rule over the land and people, acting in the name of "national security".
They're trying to pull the same shit with Taiwan.
I personally don't think nationality, ethnicity, culture etc is a good way of determining state borders, I don't even think borders are a good idea at all. In this case however the CCP is very successful in using these arguments to justify the integration of Hong Kong (and Taiwan), which is why I am here saying it's lies.
Now I'm curious what do you have to say about Taiwan. Culturally, linguistically, ethnically etc it's very close to Hong Kong. Does that mean the Taiwanese are Chinese?
What about Austrians, they're Germans in almost everything except the name, they actually considered themselves Germans just...
I would love to get back to you, I'm just a little busy the next couple of days. I made the above daftponk because I'm thinking about the reaction to such. I don't suppose you have a real name or email that we could connect over and continue or discussion there? I just feel that would be more enlightening than doing it here.
I do want to discuss and get back to you, but i understand if you're scared to share an email address here because you're afraid to be known as someone who says something against China. If you're concerned about that, or simply reticent to share an email address, I can reply you here, no problem. Just probably give me a couple more days in that case.
I just very sad for the commenter because there's so much misinformation there but they seem to genuinely believe it. I think it's a terrible thing to be so misinformed and not see things clearly, and then say it as if you can argue it's true. I feel so sad for them because it looks to me like these lies have used this person, and sadly, blinded them. It's not my place to tell them what they should believe...I just hope this can give them a bit of clarity. But if not, then at least they seem to like their current beliefs, and they seem to feel happy believing them, so that's good for them, at least. Still, I hope this assists that person somehow, especially if they decide to change their beliefs. I've tried to not "attack the person" and instead am just "commenting on the commentary".
I am aware of all the legal documents you mentioned, including the Nanking treaty and the variously amended agreements from the 90's.
If that were the case, then this statement would display knowledge of how, if it were an honest statement, the Chinese haven't violated a word of any of them. Claiming without showing how the central government has violated the Basic Law as is pretended here, is very incorrect.
You are correct that initially the Brits took the Hong Kong land and people by force from the Qing dynasty (not from "the Chinese",
One and the same. A comment Western propaganda trick is to try to divorce the people from their governing system, and say "I love Chinese people, just hate the Chinese governing system." This unthought-out, irrational statement is fodder for geopolitical propagandists.
the Chinese were subjects of an absolutist monarchy - as compared to e.g. British subjects that had a much better position and being a British subject was even considered a privilege; note that later Hongkongers often considered it a privilege too).
Racist Western arrogance blinds this comment. Having the country split asunder, and stolen at gunpoint is now (if this comment is to be believed), "a much better position", even (how self-important, blind, and abusive) "a privilege". If it were truly better, why did the Chinese have to be forced by the British at gunpoint to abandon their system and their sovereignty, why not willingly run to the embrace of the "better" system?
That doesn't change anything about the fact that modern Hongkongers are a distinct group of people that would prefer to have their own state - many Hongkongers of today would actually prefer a modern version of British protectorate, regardless of how unjustified and unwanted it was at the time of its original establishment. That the Hongkongers would prefer a completely foreign ruler is very telling about China.
This is such a lie. True "independence" activists were a scant minority even at the height of rioting. If this comment truly understood HK as it pretended to, it would assert that their British affiliation was just a way to rebel by trying to anger China.
Were the people deciding, or was it decided for them?
Southern Chinese people living in HK were perfectly happy to decide to be part of China until the British forced surrender with superior military. It was decided for them by British guns, just like these racist statements are now "deciding for" HK and Chinese people how they should govern their affairs.
Did their government (the UK) act by itself or because it was threatened?
Brits threatened at gunpoint in the opium wars. This comment's history is backwards. It refuses in its estimation to grant HK the autonomy you pretend to be standing up for.
Perhaps that is why we're ignoring the legal documents -
This comment admits its ignorance, and in its hubris suggests its "ideas" have greater validity than the legal basis of HK, a region which tho these statements pretend to, have idea no about.
11 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 39.3 ms ] threadThis statement is full of factual inaccuracies, and historically incorrect lies. No, HK was not "coerced and forced" to return to China, it returned because of a joint agreement between China and UK. Yes, China is a nation and nation state. No there was no false promises, threats nor lies. Everything was said in advance, in the Joint Declaration before 1997, and further elaborated in the Basic Law. Both of these documents you can read online in Chinese and English and see this is the case. The lack of knowledge about the legal basis of HK is one of the ways people are tricked into believing crazy stuff like in this comment. But it seems nobody is content to argue about the actual factual historical legal documents. They want to make up crazy ideologies and fight as if that's true. No wonder there is so much nonsense about this issue.
The statement also invokes some crazy nonsense about Chinese "ethnic and racial purity". China has quite a bit of diversity of ethnic groups, and southern Chinese from Pearl River Delta region, and HK and Macau look a bit different, and talk differently to peoples from the North, at least "in general". But there are many regional dialects and customs in China, having such does not make HKers or Canton people more unique than, say, Sichuan or Shanghai people. But that has no relevance to the question of national borders. And these statements sounds scarily like they take the idea of racial purity as some sort of geographic organizing principle. Would sort of be like Bostonian Irish wanting to secede to create a racially pure enclave in the Hamptons.
It's odd how backward this comment is...there is racism, and forcing and coercion in HK's past, but from Brits who coerced China into giving up this region, using guns, in (what is literally called) "The Unequal Treaty" (of Nanking), and forced HKers to accept British rule, and often to work and live like slaves. Without any other info, these sorts of nonsense statements sound like guilty Brits trying to whitewash their colonial history with this ridiculous (and basically racist) claptrap, like in this comment. Even after 170+ years, are Westerns are still trying to meddle and tell Chinese people what is what? If that is so...it's path-etic.
Surely the opposing arguments to the case laid out in the article are better than this? If you're reading this please don't embarrass yourself by being duped into supporting ahistorical (and frankly racist) nonsense like this. If you are opposed to HK and China shared trajectory, at least have the respect to think critically and thoughtfully about it, and have the courage to face the facts.
> Everything was said in advance, in the Joint Declaration before 1997, and further elaborated in the Basic Law. Both of these documents you can read online in Chinese and English and see this is the case. The lack of knowledge about the legal basis of HK is one of the ways people are tricked into believing crazy stuff like in this comment. But it seems nobody is content to argue about the actual factual historical legal documents.
Were the people deciding, or was it decided for them? Did their government (the UK) act by itself or because it was threatened? Perhaps that is why we're ignoring the legal documents - and as always what two superpowers decided between them might have no relevance to the actual wishes of the people on that land, as you said yourself.
Additionally, you should re-read the document - the Chinese state is blatantly violating the agreement that was to expire in 2047.
> China is a nation and nation state.
Did the people agree to it before they were "re-educated" in death camps? Do they even agree to it today?
> China has quite a bit of diversity of ethnic groups, and southern Chinese from Pearl River Delta region, and HK and Macau look a bit different, and talk differently to peoples from the North, at least "in general". But there are many regional dialects and customs in China, having such does not make HKers or Canton people more unique than, say, Sichuan or Shanghai people.
You're contradicting the previous statement. It has everything to do with national borders when these are the things that define the nation in the minds of the people we're talking about.
I never said it makes Hongkongers more unique, I don't think it does. Secession of e.g. Sichuan from China is impossible at this point in time though and not that wanted by the people there, so no point in talking about them in this discussion.
> And these statements sounds scarily like they take the idea of racial purity as some sort of geographic organizing principle.
Heh, that is exactly what the Chinese Communist party is doing and what I am opposed to. They're building the concept of "the new Chinese person" which everybody should subscribe to, and they're using this new "Chinese nationality" as a justification of their rule over the land and people, acting in the name of "national security".
They're trying to pull the same shit with Taiwan.
I personally don't think nationality, ethnicity, culture etc is a good way of determining state borders, I don't even think borders are a good idea at all. In this case however the CCP is very successful in using these arguments to justify the integration of Hong Kong (and Taiwan), which is why I am here saying it's lies.
Now I'm curious what do you have to say about Taiwan. Culturally, linguistically, ethnically etc it's very close to Hong Kong. Does that mean the Taiwanese are Chinese?
What about Austrians, they're Germans in almost everything except the name, they actually considered themselves Germans just...
I am aware of all the legal documents you mentioned, including the Nanking treaty and the variously amended agreements from the 90's.
If that were the case, then this statement would display knowledge of how, if it were an honest statement, the Chinese haven't violated a word of any of them. Claiming without showing how the central government has violated the Basic Law as is pretended here, is very incorrect.
You are correct that initially the Brits took the Hong Kong land and people by force from the Qing dynasty (not from "the Chinese",
One and the same. A comment Western propaganda trick is to try to divorce the people from their governing system, and say "I love Chinese people, just hate the Chinese governing system." This unthought-out, irrational statement is fodder for geopolitical propagandists.
the Chinese were subjects of an absolutist monarchy - as compared to e.g. British subjects that had a much better position and being a British subject was even considered a privilege; note that later Hongkongers often considered it a privilege too).
Racist Western arrogance blinds this comment. Having the country split asunder, and stolen at gunpoint is now (if this comment is to be believed), "a much better position", even (how self-important, blind, and abusive) "a privilege". If it were truly better, why did the Chinese have to be forced by the British at gunpoint to abandon their system and their sovereignty, why not willingly run to the embrace of the "better" system?
That doesn't change anything about the fact that modern Hongkongers are a distinct group of people that would prefer to have their own state - many Hongkongers of today would actually prefer a modern version of British protectorate, regardless of how unjustified and unwanted it was at the time of its original establishment. That the Hongkongers would prefer a completely foreign ruler is very telling about China.
This is such a lie. True "independence" activists were a scant minority even at the height of rioting. If this comment truly understood HK as it pretended to, it would assert that their British affiliation was just a way to rebel by trying to anger China.
Were the people deciding, or was it decided for them?
Southern Chinese people living in HK were perfectly happy to decide to be part of China until the British forced surrender with superior military. It was decided for them by British guns, just like these racist statements are now "deciding for" HK and Chinese people how they should govern their affairs.
Did their government (the UK) act by itself or because it was threatened?
Brits threatened at gunpoint in the opium wars. This comment's history is backwards. It refuses in its estimation to grant HK the autonomy you pretend to be standing up for.
Perhaps that is why we're ignoring the legal documents -
This comment admits its ignorance, and in its hubris suggests its "ideas" have greater validity than the legal basis of HK, a region which tho these statements pretend to, have idea no about.
and as always what two superpowers...
b) They have violated the agreement they committed to, to guarantee autonomy
"Defending Hong Kong"? They been violating all everyone's rights for many years!