6 ms·
I'll try to strictly source my remarks and refrain from commenting on the political content of the HK demonstrations to keep this purely factual, as I think thi
by MsMowz 5y ago
I'll try to strictly source my remarks and refrain from commenting on the political content of the HK demonstrations to keep this purely factual, as I think this could be a rather controversial thread; however, it's interesting how different the reception to these demonstrations is to the reception to the US Capitol riots and the BLM demonstrations of last year. Hong Kong demonstrators have stormed government buildings[1], thrown gasoline bombs at police[2], attacked plainclothes police[3], and the like. In total, one pro-liberalization demonstrator died after falling from a parking garage[4], and one anti-liberalization demonstrator died after being bludgeoned with a brick by pro-liberalization demonstrators[5]. To keep this in context, the current Hong Kong SAR government is democratically elected[6] according to the provisions of an international treaty signed by the PRC and the UK which took effect in 1997[7].
If these events occurred in the United States, whose government surveils almost all telecommunications[8], what would its government do? One part of that answer is to have the military occupy a city with limited congressional representation (DC)[9]. This is clearly a much more restrictive measure than the measures taken by the HKSAR government, but its presentation by non-Chinese media has been the exact opposite. For what it's worth (zero), my opinion is that both government responses are consistent with what can be expected given their respective situations. Why are they portrayed differently? Is it ideology, or am I missing something that differentiates the two?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Legislative_Council_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Legislative_Co...
[2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50115629 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50115629
[3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/hong-kong-police-tear-gas-rally-after-protesters-attack-plainclothes-agents/2020/01/19/589d8272-3a99-11ea-a1ff-c48c1d59a4a1_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/hong-kong-...
[4]: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3036833/hong-kong-student-who-suffered-severe-brain-injury-after https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3036833...
[5]: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/14/asia/hong-kong-protest-elderly-man-dies-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/14/asia/hong-kong-protest-el...
[6]: http://www.legco.gov.hk/general/english/intro/about_lc.htm http://www.legco.gov.hk/general/english/intro/about_lc.htm
[7]: http://www.cmab.gov.hk/en/issues/jd2.htm http://www.cmab.gov.hk/en/issues/jd2.htm
[8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
[9]: https://nypost.com/2021/03/09/pentagon-extends-national-guard-protection-at-us-capitol/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/09/pentagon-extends-national-guar...
- jonathannat 5y agoDifference: US riot - citizens who enjoy democratic freedom protested against republic/democratic government. protest got violent, government handled it. Hong Kong riot - citizens who enjoy(ed) democratic freedom protested against encroaching dictatorship. protest was peaceful, but then turned violent when police faking as protestors started violence. protest got violent, government handled it (openly and in secret). The dictatorship increased its power at the end.
- Twaway45609 5y agoI think the main difference is that the chinese would not dare to dock their aircraft carrier in new york, while the US did so to provoke the chinese communust party in hong kong. This is all about american interests and destabilizing china ir other countries. I wonder what will happen in q few years. Will americans accept that another super power will dictate them what to do like the US currently does to their allies: europe cant build a pipeline to russia, in order to protect american interests in ukraine and poland. Europe cant use chinese hardware, while its proven that just a few years ago the americans listened to all communication of angela merkel, europe cant do business with the russians because they are sanctioned, nor with iran, etc...
- systemvoltage 5y ago> I think the main difference is that the chinese would not dare to dock their aircraft carrier in new york, while the US did so to provoke the chinese communust party in hong kong. This is a tiring argument. China has only 1 ally - North Korea. The rest of the countries in the proximity of China are adversarial and aligned with US - Japan, SK particularly. If Canada and Mexico were close allies of China, you betchya there would be a lot more going on along the east and west coast of US. In fact, Japan and SK are counting on US to defend them. Does Canada and Mexico have such relationship with China? No. Instead, the US+Canada have NORAD. I suggest some reading regarding military alliances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_alliances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_alliances
- openasocket 5y ago