5 ms·

Wow, you only read the thread title of the first link I gave you. Obviously you aren't interested in learning anything. If you change your mind, read a little f

by atr_gz 7y ago

Wow, you only read the thread title of the first link I gave you. Obviously you aren't interested in learning anything. If you change your mind, read a little further. You claimed that it's impossible to read about the Opium Wars in Western media, I say I learned about it in high school history and give you one of thousands upon thousands of links about it that will come up when you search. I never claimed the West was innocent, nor that they should be forgiven about anything. You're just adding all that stuff in to further muddle the discussion when you've been proven wrong. I hope you learn to challenge your own beliefs, because after your comments I don't think it's a good use of my time to continue discussing things with you.

confusedhnguy 7y ago
OK I admit that I didn't read the whole thing. So I go back and read every single line of that link. OK, the Provisional Legislative Council was questionable in your view, I understand. But how exactly does this proves that the Chinese government blocked the democracy for 60 years? How about the existence of LegCo? Also I still don't think we agree on what the word "return" means. Yes there are thousands of links that talk about the opium wars, and you have learned about it in school, but that doesn't help because the news don't talk about it. If you decide to include every wrong doings of the CCP when you talk about HK, it is dishonest to exclude the UK's dirty history. I would also ask you to challenge your beliefs about why some parts of the world is unstable. I do not have proofs about whether there is someone behind this event in HK, but the protesters also have no proof that this bill is going to make HK a 1984-like society. China is a country surrounded by enemies, it isn't a bad thing to be paranoid, especially when people are clearly overreacting. https://www.investigaction.net/en/trojan-horses-and-color-revolutions-the-role-of-the-national-endowment-for-democracy-ned/ https://www.investigaction.net/en/trojan-horses-and-color-re...
- atr_gz 7y ago
  Okay, maybe you're more reasonable than it seemed at first. I understand some paranoia about foreign opinions. But, how often does the news need to talk about the Opium Wars? I would say there are plenty of long-form articles talking about it, but does every article about Hong Kong need to give century-old context? It's brought up in Chinese media far more often because it's useful for the CCP to remind people. It helps keep them in power and feeds their narrative that China must never be seen as weak again. And while I personally don't think excessive nationalistic propaganda is a good thing, it's at least understandable. However, my point is that this part of history being brought up more often in Chinese media doesn't mean it's the natural state of things, or that it should be brought up more often in Western media. No one reasonable thinks the British or other foreign powers involved did the right thing there. You claimed straw-man really easily before. Don't you think saying that HKers think this one bill will turn HK into a 1984-like society is a bit of a straw-man? I think most of them might say that the problem is not one bill, but more of a slippery slope type thing. Give an inch, give a mile. What beliefs do I have about why parts of the world are unstable? I don't think I've expressed any, so you must be making an assumption there. And actually, if you ask around, I don't think you'll find many westerners who think colonialism was a good thing, although I'm sure there are some. Finally, about the British wanting Hong Kong to be democratic. After further reading, 60 years might not be right. There was a plan in the 40s and 50s for democracy, but it sounds like it was the British governor of the time who blocked it for unclear reasons. I don't know if there were other attempts before the negotiations for the handover began. The 1980s are more accurate, so maybe about 20 years before Chinese rule. That said, I still think it can be assumed that the CCP opposed democracy in Hong Kong. If you want me to say Britain messed up with Hong Kong by not allowing democracy, then I can agree with that. And I'll certainly agree that Western colonialism was for the most part a terrible thing that made the world a worse place.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    60 years is right. Governors were repeatedly seeking democracy and proper elections, but pressure from Beijing forced them to back down. The papers are now publicly available at the National Archive, and linked in this NYT piece: "Chinese leaders were so opposed to the prospect of a democratic Hong Kong that they threatened to invade should London attempt to change the status quo" https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-hong-kong-elections-in-50s.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
    - confusedhnguy 7y ago
      "Positive actions" is equivalent to "invasion"? Also is the West stronger than China or not? I am confused. If it is, then this threat means nothing. If the China is stronger, then why bother to create the one country two systems policy? Also, if China was strong enough to threaten the West, why is Taiwan still an issue till today? The reference in the article you posted says: > not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance. So the Chinese government doesn't want HK do declare independence instead of returning to China, and will take positive actions if that is about to happen. Again, you and I don't agree on what the word "return" means.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Let's look at this logically. "We shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated..." liberated - freed from enemy occupation. OK What could China do to achieve that? Break diplomatic ties? Economic sanctions as a huge importer of HK goods and services whilst 50s China's economy was a broken mess? Close the already mostly closed border? Write an angry letter? What's left? Invasion. What possible alternative interpretation can you suggest? Military blockade and starve them out? That's effectively war too, but with a much greater chance of escalating if you militarily prevent other nation's shipping... "However, the present status of Hong Kong is to our benefit" ... "Through Hong Kong we can trade..." Clearly the Chinese benefited from the huge economic success of Hong Kong so preferred not to invade or bomb the place to oblivion. They'd already backed off destabilising the Hang Seng as they got far more benefit from that decadent Western capitalism. The whole Chinese propaganda around the democracy of Hong Kong is exposed as blatant lie. "is the West stronger than China or not? I am confused. If it is, then this threat means nothing." Having had two of them nations generally seem to prefer avoiding a third world war. That one can doesn't always mean one wants to, even if one is as strong as the USA. Allies may not want to join to protect a territory being handed back in 50 years. Taiwan has no such time limit. "Chinese government doesn't want HK do declare independence instead of returning to China" Democratic elections are not declaring independence. The people of Hong Kong could have elected their own government whilst still being a British territory until 1997. The elected body would give local powers and the state would retain others. Just as California elects a government whilst remaining part of the USA. The fact that California and other US states have a state government does not make them independent nations. There is no Californian foreign policy, diplomatic service or military, that's for the nation - the USA. Hong Kong would still have returned to China as agreed in the treaty, whilst retaining a local, democratic government. I imagine even cities in China have some form of city government - just they are entirely non-democratic. Of course it should be noted Hong Kong itself was granted in perpetuity. As it turned out, China threw out many of the limited democratic changes Chris Patten made in 1994, as last Governor and put in place a much less democratic regime. Giving HKers the absurd "show elections" of the Chief Executive. Patten, who was hugely unpopular with Beijing for the reforms he did put through, did so in the hope that some might stick after handover.

by atr_gz 7y ago

confusedhnguy 7y ago

OK I admit that I didn't read the whole thing. So I go back and read every single line of that link. OK, the Provisional Legislative Council was questionable in your view, I understand. But how exactly does this proves that the Chinese government blocked the democracy for 60 years? How about the existence of LegCo? Also I still don't think we agree on what the word "return" means. Yes there are thousands of links that talk about the opium wars, and you have learned about it in school, but that doesn't help because the news don't talk about it. If you decide to include every wrong doings of the CCP when you talk about HK, it is dishonest to exclude the UK's dirty history. I would also ask you to challenge your beliefs about why some parts of the world is unstable. I do not have proofs about whether there is someone behind this event in HK, but the protesters also have no proof that this bill is going to make HK a 1984-like society. China is a country surrounded by enemies, it isn't a bad thing to be paranoid, especially when people are clearly overreacting. https://www.investigaction.net/en/trojan-horses-and-color-revolutions-the-role-of-the-national-endowment-for-democracy-ned/ https://www.investigaction.net/en/trojan-horses-and-color-re...

atr_gz 7y ago
Okay, maybe you're more reasonable than it seemed at first. I understand some paranoia about foreign opinions. But, how often does the news need to talk about the Opium Wars? I would say there are plenty of long-form articles talking about it, but does every article about Hong Kong need to give century-old context? It's brought up in Chinese media far more often because it's useful for the CCP to remind people. It helps keep them in power and feeds their narrative that China must never be seen as weak again. And while I personally don't think excessive nationalistic propaganda is a good thing, it's at least understandable. However, my point is that this part of history being brought up more often in Chinese media doesn't mean it's the natural state of things, or that it should be brought up more often in Western media. No one reasonable thinks the British or other foreign powers involved did the right thing there. You claimed straw-man really easily before. Don't you think saying that HKers think this one bill will turn HK into a 1984-like society is a bit of a straw-man? I think most of them might say that the problem is not one bill, but more of a slippery slope type thing. Give an inch, give a mile. What beliefs do I have about why parts of the world are unstable? I don't think I've expressed any, so you must be making an assumption there. And actually, if you ask around, I don't think you'll find many westerners who think colonialism was a good thing, although I'm sure there are some. Finally, about the British wanting Hong Kong to be democratic. After further reading, 60 years might not be right. There was a plan in the 40s and 50s for democracy, but it sounds like it was the British governor of the time who blocked it for unclear reasons. I don't know if there were other attempts before the negotiations for the handover began. The 1980s are more accurate, so maybe about 20 years before Chinese rule. That said, I still think it can be assumed that the CCP opposed democracy in Hong Kong. If you want me to say Britain messed up with Hong Kong by not allowing democracy, then I can agree with that. And I'll certainly agree that Western colonialism was for the most part a terrible thing that made the world a worse place.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  60 years is right. Governors were repeatedly seeking democracy and proper elections, but pressure from Beijing forced them to back down. The papers are now publicly available at the National Archive, and linked in this NYT piece: "Chinese leaders were so opposed to the prospect of a democratic Hong Kong that they threatened to invade should London attempt to change the status quo" https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-hong-kong-elections-in-50s.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
  - confusedhnguy 7y ago
    "Positive actions" is equivalent to "invasion"? Also is the West stronger than China or not? I am confused. If it is, then this threat means nothing. If the China is stronger, then why bother to create the one country two systems policy? Also, if China was strong enough to threaten the West, why is Taiwan still an issue till today? The reference in the article you posted says: > not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance. So the Chinese government doesn't want HK do declare independence instead of returning to China, and will take positive actions if that is about to happen. Again, you and I don't agree on what the word "return" means.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Let's look at this logically. "We shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated..." liberated - freed from enemy occupation. OK What could China do to achieve that? Break diplomatic ties? Economic sanctions as a huge importer of HK goods and services whilst 50s China's economy was a broken mess? Close the already mostly closed border? Write an angry letter? What's left? Invasion. What possible alternative interpretation can you suggest? Military blockade and starve them out? That's effectively war too, but with a much greater chance of escalating if you militarily prevent other nation's shipping... "However, the present status of Hong Kong is to our benefit" ... "Through Hong Kong we can trade..." Clearly the Chinese benefited from the huge economic success of Hong Kong so preferred not to invade or bomb the place to oblivion. They'd already backed off destabilising the Hang Seng as they got far more benefit from that decadent Western capitalism. The whole Chinese propaganda around the democracy of Hong Kong is exposed as blatant lie. "is the West stronger than China or not? I am confused. If it is, then this threat means nothing." Having had two of them nations generally seem to prefer avoiding a third world war. That one can doesn't always mean one wants to, even if one is as strong as the USA. Allies may not want to join to protect a territory being handed back in 50 years. Taiwan has no such time limit. "Chinese government doesn't want HK do declare independence instead of returning to China" Democratic elections are not declaring independence. The people of Hong Kong could have elected their own government whilst still being a British territory until 1997. The elected body would give local powers and the state would retain others. Just as California elects a government whilst remaining part of the USA. The fact that California and other US states have a state government does not make them independent nations. There is no Californian foreign policy, diplomatic service or military, that's for the nation - the USA. Hong Kong would still have returned to China as agreed in the treaty, whilst retaining a local, democratic government. I imagine even cities in China have some form of city government - just they are entirely non-democratic. Of course it should be noted Hong Kong itself was granted in perpetuity. As it turned out, China threw out many of the limited democratic changes Chris Patten made in 1994, as last Governor and put in place a much less democratic regime. Giving HKers the absurd "show elections" of the Chief Executive. Patten, who was hugely unpopular with Beijing for the reforms he did put through, did so in the hope that some might stick after handover.