Radical Hong Kong Protesters Trespass Onto PLA Headquarters

Hong Kong demonstrators trespassed into PLA headquarters carrying British Colonial Hong Kong flags.

At time of translation, this article was shown as the most commented of the day and week on major Chinese web portals Phoenix Online and NetEase respectively…

From Phoenix Online & NetEase:

6 Radicals Carrying British Hong Kong Colony Flags Intrude Into Hong Kong Garrison Prompting Response from Military

“Hong Kong independence” organization members publicly intruded into the People’s Liberation Army Hong Kong headquarters, shouting slogans demanding that the “PLA withdraw from Hong Kong”. This is the first time since the 1997 return of Hong Kong that a group has trespassed onto the Hong Kong headquarters in demonstration. Hong Kong Commercial Radio claims that a spokesperson for the PLA stationed in Hong Kong responded on the 27th that multiple Hong Kong city residents, without approval and disregarding warnings by the base guards, forcibly intruded into the base to cause trouble. The actions of those involved are already suspected of violating the Garrison Law and such laws, with the stationed troops having already reported it to the police, handing the matter over to the Hong Kong police.

The cause of the incident is the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government’s plans to use a portion the Central Harborfront land for military application arousing discontent with some Hong Kongers. Hong Kong’s Sing Pao claimed on the 27th that multiple members of the local radical organization “Hong Kong People First” [Facebook page shown below] holding the British Colonial Flag of Hong Kong charged into the Hong Kong military headquarters building, shouting slogans opposing the “construction of a military-use wharf in Central”, demanding that the “PLA withdraw from Hong Kong”. After the demonstrators trespassed in, guards stationed at the entrance to the headquarters immediately went forward to stop them, with the demonstrators eventually pushed back outside the gate.

香港人優先 Hong Kong People First Facebook page: Global Anti-Locust Movement

“Hong Kong People First” members Zhao Xiancong said to reporters that this is the “first wave of operations”, as well as a warm-up to a “New Year’s Day march”. He proclaimed that they “prepared for the worst before breaking into the Hong Kong military headquarters, namely that ‘they (the PLA) would open fire’, but in order to help Hong Kongers overcome the ‘demon’ military stationed in Hong, even if it is illegal, [they] still had to ‘do everything they could'”.

Data shows that the predecessor of “Hong Kong People First” is the netizen group “I am Hong Kongnese, not Chinese”. This group often makes bombastic statements regarding conflicts between the mainland and Hong Kong. They were commonly seen in last year’s “anti-two nots” [against births in Hong Kong where both parents are not Hong Kong residents] and “anti-grey market smugglers” [against Chinese visitors smuggling goods purchased in Hong Kong into China] activities. Those raising the British Colonial Flag of Hong Kong and Colonial Lion and Dragon flags during demonstrations and marches are also them. Although “Hong Kong People First” insists it is not a “Hong Kong independence” organization, its members often display the British Colonial Flag of Hong Kong, always claim Hong Kong is a “country”, and their various activities are no different from those for “Hong Kong independence”.

In response to the Hong Kongers’ charging into the military headquarters demonstration, Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong legislative council members indicated that this incident shows that Hong Kong has all sorts of people, and that the PLA can follow-up on it in accordance with the Basic Law. Hong Kong’s Oriental Daily News reported on the 27th that there were netizens praising the PLA for “demonstrating restraint”, “you go try that at the American Consulate in Hong Kong, and see if you’ll have a gun pointed at your head”.

Peking University Hong Kong and Macau Research Center Director and Law School Professor Rao Geping said during an interview with a Global Times reporter that these “Hong Kong independence” elements are clearly challenging the law, opposing the Basic Law and Garrison Law, opposing national sovereignty, and that the existence of such actions harming national interests should not be allowed in a rule of law society like Hong Kong. He says there is a limit to “One Country, Two Systems”, which is that if we want to protect Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability, we should also protect national sovereignty, security, and development interest. The stationing of troops in Hong Kong is necessary to protect sovereignty, as well as protecting necessary to protect a national security that includes Hong Kong within it. Clashing with stationed troops is a serious criminal act, as well as a sort of act that damages national security”.

Hong Kong demonstrators trespassed into PLA headquarters carrying British Colonial Hong Kong flags.

Comments from NetEase:

网易北京市手机网友(124.202.*.*):

Hehe

网易辽宁省大连市手机网友(123.185.*.*): (responding to above)

Hehe

网易格林纳达网友 [疏桐5920]: (responding to above)

Hehe

网易青海省西宁市手机网友 [O青空之泪O]: (responding to above)

Hehe

网易四川省成都市网友 ip:118.122.*.*: (responding to above)

Hehe [This comment thread was upvoted over 64k times]

活丑 [网易北京市网友]:

If only people could go to Hong Kong to sell vegetables or work.

天朝隐士 [网易广西河池市网友]:

And only in Hong Kong would there be this kind of treatment/response, where you can attack a military base and [only] have the police called. In the mainland, you would’ve been beaten senseless already.

正义鹰派 [网易澳门网友]:

How much USD are these crazy people getting each day?
I support on-site execution [immediate enforcement/punishment], do not be too indulgent/lenient!

yangyemin [网易上海市网友]:

This is serious. Make it so they dare not do it a second time, otherwise they’ll become even more bold and out of control in the future, and it’ll be yet another big problem!

网易福建省福州市手机网友 ip:58.22.*.*: (responding to 正义鹰派)

Recommend they be shot dead on-site, [this] is already seriously endangering national stability and security.

网易北京市手机网友 ip:117.136.*.*: (responding to 天朝隐士)

This bunch of fanatics without conscience must be punished strictly without mercy/leniency! They might be the seed of Japanese people.

网易广东省手机网友 ip:117.136.*.*: (also responding to 正义鹰派)

My thinking exactly. There must be someone paying the 6!

Hong Kong demonstrators charge into PLA headquarters carrying British Colonial Hong Kong flags.

Comments from Phoenix Online:

凤凰网北京市网友:手机用户

Some Hong Kong people are shameless to the extreme, who would rather be slaves than masters, thinking highly of themselves. China’s government must severely punish [this].

凤凰网浙江省金华市网友:zys913

Chinese traitors, this class of criminal elements must be executed.

凤凰网内蒙古呼和浩特市网友:ssytzg

Where were these bastards when the British devils were around? Look into their backgrounds, see if they are earning USD or JPY!

凤凰网四川省泸州市网友:youmo

Every nationality ultimately has some scum, this isn’t worth making a fuss over. In accordance with their wishes, just go ahead and blow off their heads.

凤凰网上海市网友:手机用户

How is this behavior different from Abe? Do you still deserve to be the sons and daughters of China? Go to hell.

凤凰网浙江省金华市网友:雨后阳光666666

These troublemakers are either traitors or the dregs of Western colonialism, should be resolutely given severe punishment, and not be indulged!

凤凰网新疆网友:手机用户

A bunch of foreign slaves, expel them from Hong Kong.

凤凰网北京市网友:手机用户

Severely punish the chief head criminal [leader of the group].

凤凰网上海市网友:手机用户

They’ve gotten so used to being slaves that they can’t get used to being masters.

凤凰网上海市网友:手机用户

If they want to be slaves, they can change their nationality and fuck off, instead of embarrassing themselves on Chinese territory!

凤凰网日本网友:wza555

The people who don’t like Hong Kong being a part of China can just emigrate to the UK.

Hong Kong demonstrators charge into PLA headquarters carrying British Colonial Hong Kong flags.

Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • MonkeyMouth

    i say..”cool!”…let anyone express themself at any time. lots of Hk folks are scared about their home being turned into the miasma you see all to often in shanghai, beijing, etc. i dont see a problem in it at all. just read some of the comments and you will see the reason why they are scared. Hk’ers dont want to be robots!

    • Jobjed

      I couldn’t care less if they protested on the streets of Hong Kong, but it really is unreasonable to compromise the military effectiveness of the garrison that is safeguarding their very city.

      It’s plain stupid to walk unauthorised into any military installation in the world; feel the guards should have given these idiots the beat-down and teach them a thing or two about messing with servicemen/servicewomen.

      • don mario

        they said they might get shot at.. i think its fine, they accepted the consequences to get a big story out.

      • Ruaraidh

        The PLA doesn’t exist to safeguard the people of Hong Kong, or even Mainland China. The PLA exists only to safeguard the interests of the Chinese Communist Party.

        • Irvin

          You’re wrong, they’re there to shoot japanese if they ever invaded again.

          • Ruaraidh

            The PLA has probably killed more than five hundred times as many Chinese people as it’s killed Japanese invaders.

        • Jobjed

          And the CCP runs China. To interfere with the operation of the PLA is to interfere with the running of China. Everyone has different opinions of the CCP but results don’t lie. They turned China from the primitive state of the 40s to a global power. It’s an obvious conclusion that the interests of the CCP correlates directly with the interests of China as a whole, at least for now.

          • Edward_Crowley

            global power? they can’t still project their naval power worldwide yet, I’d wait a few more years before buying into the china daily rhetoric.

          • sfphoto1

            space power, yes. naval power, not yet. but who needs the seas when China owns the skies?

          • Zappa Frank

            Hahaha…you are joking right? Because if you don’t I can laugh more loudly

          • Edward_Crowley

            Star wars?

          • sfphoto1

            Coming soon…

          • Edward_Crowley

            same batchannel, same battime?

      • Kai

        If all they did was what they did in the video, I think the response was proportionate and thus appropriate. I really don’t think we can elevate what they did into “compromising the military effectiveness of the garrison that is safeguarding their very city.” That’s an unhelpful exaggeration.

  • http://yoursexycousinrex.tumblr.com/ Your Sexy Cousin Rex

    Lucky the locust guards didn’t overreact

  • mr.wiener

    are the above comments “wu mao”? I thought they got paid by the line.

  • 二奶头发

    Looking at the age of the protesters they seem to be around early – mid 20s (maybe the guy in red in his early 30s). In 1997 they were just kids. If they were much older (ones who experienced british rule the longest, retired people, 40+) and lots more of them, plus some important people in HK that would different.

    Just a bunch of young people looking to get attention. This stunt was stupid and a waste. If they go to jail they deserve it.

    • Highlander

      Maybe they are seeing what the older generation has taken for granted?

      I have a friend in HK, when HK was handed back to China, his mother moved them all to Canada so they could get the Canadian Passport, so that when China do ‘invade’ HK, they could get out (since they have returned there).

    • don mario

      younger generation of hong kong is smarter than the mainland. who would of thought it?

      • Andrew

        Who would HAVE thought…Yes, your friends are smarter and should therefore teach you how to write properly

        • don mario

          i’m not a laowai english teacher, and i can write however i like and get away with it. especially saying OF instead of V’E. they sound exactly the same. only an english teacher loser could get their knickers in a twist over such an anal thing.

          unless you have an actual point to reply with against what i said, kindly fuck off.

          • Andrew

            Well then may you please elaborate your penultimate comment supported by trustworthy data source so that we all know you are not a random redneck hater who doesn’t even know where Europe is. por favor, también puedes cogerte, hijueputita

          • don mario

            elaborate on why the hong kong youths are smarter than they mainland?

  • Marcus Muller

    I feel embarrassed for them carrying a colonial flag. Nothing wrong with wanting independence, but to suggest you wish to suckle on the tits of your former masters? Implying your people are too inept to govern themselves.. How embarrassing!

    • YourSupremeCommander

      And to call yourselves HK first, yeah full of yourselves much?

      • Irvin

        don’t be too worked up about it, it changes nothing, HK got no army. Even if they do it doesn’t stand a chance against the ones in china. With out an army they’re just trolls.

    • Highlander

      Well, it is to make a statement they use that flag and not the Chinese approved one.

      They don’t have a flag that in independent from either China or UK. Plus, HKers know they were better under the Brits than the Chinese mainlanders.

    • don mario

      its basically just saying that time was better than now.. nothing major there.

    • socali

      That would imply that HK considers itself part of Communist China. HK is very different from Communist China. Just think of it this way, suckle in the tits of a well bred cow with beautiful milk (the UK) or suck on the tits of a horrible undernurished cow with dirty milk (China)?

      • Kai

        Actually, what @marcusmuller:disqus said only implies that there is something fundamentally wrong with suckling the tits of ANY masters. What he said doesn’t imply HK considers itself part of China at all.

        What you said, on the other hand, would imply there is unanimity of sentiment in HK, when there isn’t, especially when the vast majority of HKers associate or disassociate with larger China based on CONVENIENCE. True, very few if any HKers considers itself part of “Communist” China, but many consider itself part of “China”,.and that includes the communist-in-name-only capitalistic monstrosity that is the modern PRC. Many consider themselves Chinese and part of a historical Chinese “nation” if not the modern “nation-state”. HKers, like people pretty much everywhere, are quick to associate when it makes them proud and quick to dissassociate when it embarrasses them. Like people everywhere, they’d love to have all of the good and none of the bad.

        The genuinely radical protesters may be the exceptional minority that may actually be consistent in their disassociation with China. The vast majority of HK is not. They are part of China when it suits them and they’ll downplay it, playing up their differences, when it suits them as well. Human nature.

  • 二奶头发

    Last year on weibo there was a video going around where a hongkong woman was criticising this 8 year old girl on the MTR for speaking to her mom in mandarin and not cantonese. The HK woman thought she was from mainland china. It turned into an argument (and the hongkong woman losing face) when the HK woman found out the girl was not from the mainland but singapore and could speak fluent english and cantonese as well.

    • Wodowsan

      Perhaps it would be good that all Chinese learn Mandarin, so all Chinese can communicate with one common tongue. It would also be good if the Mainland brought back traditional Chinese characters, which are actually much easier to understand if you know the radicals than simplified. Also much more beautiful and Chinese can read what was written before 1949.

      • Dr Sun

        Perhaps it would be good if Americans started learning and talking in ENGLISH again and brought back the letter u into their spelling. That way they would sound more beautiful and could read what was written before 1879 or whenever it was that typewriter broke.

        • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

          The change in the English language came with the telegraph. Before then, people would speak very eloquently, and frequently changing synonyms and adding extra detail that was superfluous to the actual message. A real pain in the wrist for people who had to ‘beep’ that whole message.

          So they started charging per word, and being the money savers they are, customers shortened their speech all over the place.

          • Dr Sun

            bs,if that was the case why did the real English language,spread out all over the world and was not dropped into the lazy American crap version of English to just save a penny on the telegraph message. IT did not happen in India, Australia, Singapore..etc..etc

            I don’t know if you have ever lived in the USA, they started good but now talk a kind of pigeon or ghetto English.

          • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

            Well you’re talking about slang. I’m talking about shortened speech. Technology makes communication faster, and thus people try to communicate faster. The slang or ‘ghetto’ talk is just a byproduct of a language that is alive and changing with the people that speak it.

            I mean look at Australia. Look at that slang. I still don’t know what a ‘drongo’ is.

          • Dr Sun

            no its not its just morons that talk ghetto spreading it off as the new cool way to talk

        • Wodowsan

          Actually British English has changed more so over the years than American English. American English is actually closer to the original, that is when if comes to pronunciation. Standard American English does not drop the vowels as British English does. As for spelling words were spelled in many different ways depending on even which region of England you were from.
          Supposedly only 2% of Brits use the Queen’s English or what is also known as BBC English. As for the U.S. standard “Broadcast” English is more commonly used. Yet of course there are regional accents, just as there are in Great Britain. But they are not completely different spoken languages as Chinese is in the Chinese Provinces. As different as Spanish is from Italian or French. Which is why mandarin was adopted as a national language to help unify the nation in a time of radio, movies, and later TV. Not just the written word.
          Is wasn’t until Dr. Johnson in 1755, and later Webster in 1806, there were attempts to standardize English spelling. Still think traditional Chinese is much more attractive than the Romanized system.
          Having a common language does have the benefit of creating one less reason to create divides between us. Look how French speaking Quebec wants to separate from the rest of Canada. If the Americans keep up the bi-lingual use of Spanish the Americans may soon be running into the same frictions.
          Below is an example of the use of simplified and traditional icons, for those that do not know Chinese. I would argue the later is easier to understand and more pleasing to the eye.

  • Middle_Kingdum

    Hehe

    • Jay K.

      hehe

  • socali

    I respect these Hong Kongers.

    • Irvin

      Please elaborate what’s so respectable about waving a colonial flag while breaking the law?

      • NSA

        please elaborate what’s so respectable about stealing islands while claiming to rise ‘peacefully’?

        • Jobjed

          You misspelt ‘reclaiming’.

      • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

        Seems to me like the breaking the law part was a stunt to gain national attention. Like Tienanmen Square. And they got it.

        Sometimes when the government or general public just doesn’t want to acknowledge a problem as real, lines need to be crossed.

        • Irvin

          With that same logic are you condoning if the government does the same? The government could easily shot those idiots dead to get people’s attention.

          Lines shouldn’t be cross by either government or citizens.

          • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

            And yet they do anyway. There are times when breaking the law is the only way to point out when the other side is doing it. In this case, the protesters created a situation, the CCP’s usual strategies don’t work on.

            Forcibly removing them? Well then the PLA looks like a bunch of bullies and will see more resistance from locals and outsiders.

            Shooting them? The government looks like a dictatorship and will meet even more resistance later.

        • Jobjed

          Yeah well, Hong Kong has 7 million people, they could try to invite more people. Seems to me that not many are in support of their actions judging from the people, or rather lack of, joining in their stunt.

  • Highlander

    All the comments calling them traitors or slaves are funny. The mainlanders are ‘slaves’ to their government yet the HKers, who enjoy more freedom, are called slaves. They are not traitors as they want to be free from the oppression that is China! If any of the posters tried to do what the protesters did in China, they’d be dead or worse.

    • Zappa Frank

      but this would have more sense if they would have used the hongkong flag, not the old hongkong-british flag. they call them slaves because seems they miss to be a british colony.

      • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

        The HK flag isn’t an independent flag either. They would need to use a new flag, which most people would find stupid.

        It is either the Chinese HK flag or the British HK flag until they can get enough support to have a truely independent flag.

    • Jobjed

      I’m actually not too sure of that. Chinese guards at front gates almost never use their weapons to intimidate, much less actually use them. I’ve been to Huangpu and Bohai Shipyards which construct China’s frigates and nuclear submarines and the guards aren’t even armed. You’ll think that a facility important enough to build vessels that protect the nation would be guarded to the teeth, but nope, not in China apparently.

      I don’t think anything different would happen to these protesters on scene if they pulled this stunt on the mainland, the differences would lie in how their actions are processed afterwards; AKA shipped off to re-education in the mainland.

  • nqk123

    some of the comments above sound like China is run by the Army or in favor of letting the Army run the country? What do you guy think

    • Irvin

      Most people are sheeps and stupid, that’s why we don’t see much steve jobs or bill gates. It’s the truth.

      • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

        We don’t see Steve Jobs because he’s dead.

    • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

      Not quite. The army is an extension of the party’s will. Think of the government as the head, body, and arms. The army is the hammer that breaks the legs of those that go against the party.

      • nqk123

        i have doubt about this. i have always felt that the Chinese leaders could not completely control the army.

  • Ruaraidh

    Every mainlander: ‘Hong Kong protesters are the dregs of western colonisation, shoot them dead. By the way how’s my UK visa application coming on?’

    • http://karmaeconomics.blogspot.com/ lavista4u

      I’m Indian and If you ask around 90% of us want Britain to take over again. We are really fed up with our own corrupt government. During the British times…India was much better.

      All British colonies were in much better shape than it is now. In many aspects British really knew how to run a country. Majority of Asian leaders are greedy, corrupt, self-obsessed morons who have no idea how to run a country.

      Don’t kid around…Hong Kong was Amazing when British were in control now, it has now become Good….give it 10 more years and it will be another Chinese city….some people in Hong Kong feel the change, so they are protesting…

      • Zappa Frank

        so the solution is to be controlled by someone else? like children..

        • Irvin

          There really are no right answers to this, some people just likes to be rule instead of finding their own ways to their own salvation.

          Managing yourselves are hard, yes indeed it is, but at least you retain your dignity. Weather walking your own path as individuals are as a people; weather the result is your salvation or your damnation, at least you lived as you believe.

          If you’re not happy with india as the way they are now then be the change you want to see, not clamore for time long since pass.

          during the Qing dynasty there are people that clamore for the Ming to return, but what’s gone is gone, time moves forward and so should we.

          • Kai

            It’s funny how people nostalgize the past, forgetting how much they bitched about all manner of things back then. People are predisposed to blaming someone, anyone, for whatever they are unsatisfied with at the moment.

            The great thing about democracy is that by definition, it makes you responsible for your current state of affairs and whether or not you will change it.

          • Irvin

            That’s exactly my point! I mean if they went in to voice their disappoval of a specific matter then I would give them my thumbs up.

            But what do they really want to achieve by waving a colonial flag? I really don’t see them achieving anything but making a mockery of themselves. They either think before they act or don’t think and act.

          • masonman

            “The great thing about democracy is that by definition, it makes you
            responsible for your current state of affairs and whether or not you
            will change it.”

            Not actually true, the fact that under a democracy a majority of people are still fundamentally forced to pay for things they otherwise would not shows that under a democracy (or socialist state, or whatever) your current state of affairs is only partially your own fault. Others are forcing you into positions you didn’t want to be forced into.

          • Kai

            True, democracy by definition is about majority rule, but it is also by definition about you having the power (right, and even obligation) to influence change. Your situation therefore fundmanetally boils back down how much effort you put into convincing and organizing others for the change you want. You can blame others for things you don’t like, but somewhere along the line, you have to recognize you could’ve tried to change it or tried harder.

          • masonman

            If 75% of people in a democracy (or even a representative democracy) want to go to war with some country, no matter how hard the 25% work, they fundamentally cannot stop the war from within the democratic system. I believe the fact that people are physically assaulted if they choose to act against their conscience (“I will not fund this war”) is an inherent problem with democracy and all government.

          • Kai

            You use 75/25% as a premise for your argument when my point is that democracy is about the 25% being able to work hard enough to convince the 75% not to go to war in the first place.

            When 75% of the people want to go to war and that upsets the 25%, that means the 25% failed to convince the 75% (or whatever percentage is necessary to become the decision-making majority) to see things their way.

          • masonman

            Ok, but why should the 25 still be forced to pay for something against their conscience? They are FORCED to pay for the bullets and bombs used to kill people they do not want to be killed. Under what ethical premise is that ok?

            More fundamentally, would you say if a woman is raped, that just means she failed to convince the rapist not to do so? In a way, that IS correct…. however that is not an argument in support of rape, that is an argument showing how bad this logic is.

            If you ask me: if you fail to stop somebody who wants to do bad things to you, that doesn’t mean it is OK that he does bad things to you.

          • Kai

            Social contract, to democracy and majority rule.

            A subscription to the political framework of democracy is not the context in a rape.

            You are responsible for your own actions or inactions. Others are responsible for theirs. There’s no reason why other people’s responsibility absolves you of your own.

          • masonman

            “A subscription to the political framework of democracy is not the context in a rape.”

            They are both inherently forceful. A rape without force or the threat of force is not a rape, a government of ANY kind is not a government without the presence of force or coercion. A government without police and military to enforce their rulings leaves it as just a bunch of old guys giving people suggestions.

            “Social contract”

            If I “contract” with a phone company – if I refuse to pay – they will stop providing me service. If I refuse to pay for services under the perceived “social contract” (which was never explicitly laid out before me), I will soon have police knocking on my door, and my continued resistance will result in me either being locked in a cage or killed.

            “Others are responsible for theirs”

            Why are men automatically bound to the orders of their state, regardless of their consent?

            Why are those in the state capable of issuing a social contract, but you or I cannot?

            How can something be claimed to be a “contract” when it fails in the most important aspect of a contract: consent?

            How can you obey a contract when you don’t know what is on it? What prevents a state from executing people seemingly at random because they disobeyed some element (unknown to the victim) of the social contract?

            I have yet to see somebody bring up a theory of the social contract that wasn’t simply an ex-post-facto justification for creating the exception that “violence is totally wrong…. except when this certain group of people called the state does it.”

            Show me how I am wrong here.

          • Kai

            I think you understand why it is unrealistic to conflate the organization of society with the relationship between a rapist and his (or her!) victim. It’s the same reason why “inalienable human rights” can coexist with “majority rule”. Some things are considered inviolable with other things aren’t.

            Keep in mind that I’m not criticizing an individual’s dissent from what their government does. All I’m trying to do is defend the point that democracy by definition makes individuals under it at least partially culpable for what their representative government does.

            I understand your point about people effectively being born into a social contract with their government, without the option to have chosen so. It however doesn’t change the fact that you still have some measure of power to change that government in a framework of democracy.

            Philosophically, we are all responsible for what happens in this world, delineated along country lines or not. Practically, we understand there is differences of degree of culpability based on proximity. Democracy shortens the proximity between the government and the governed. I’m attesting to my belief of that as factual and easily understandable. I believe when you said “your current state of affairs is only partially your own fault”, you and I are not in disagreement over this.

          • masonman

            “I think you understand why it is unrealistic to conflate the organization of society with the relationship between a rapist and his victim. It’s the same reason why ‘inalienable human rights’ can coexist with ‘majority rule'”

            No, I do not understand. The idea that inalienable rights can exist but they can also be violated by the will of the majority is, to me, a completely contradictory statement. Show me a reasoned and logical argument as to how those two concepts could ever coexist. One fundamentally betrays the other. It is like the series of contradictory statements from 1984: “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.”

            “we are all responsible for what happens in this world”

            In a way, I agree. However, I do NOT believe that INACTION equates to responsibility. The fact that you and I are not selling everything we have to help starving people in third world countries does not mean we are responsible for their deaths.

            “you still have some measure of power to change that government in a framework of democracy”

            I agree, there is some measure of control over politicians (however there are a lot of problems with conflict of interest – people who vote to keep people in power who will maintain their jobs or certain subsidies), however the power that is COMPLETELY torn away from people under a democracy or any other form of government is the very very important power of allowing or disallowing consent.

            The only way you could get millions of Americans to fund expensive drone programs that mostly kill innocent people in Pakistan is if you force them to pay for it. If you want to know how many people actually “consent” (and are not just forced to live with) the social contract, on tax day, try replacing taxes with a checklist, where each citizen can check which service they wish to continue paying for (and all unchecked services will no longer be provided to their household). You can learn in ONE DAY how many people truly consent. This is why I believe rape is such a perfect comparison. Take away the force or threat of force, and then you will know whether or not the victim wanted the sex or not.

          • Kai

            Okay, the fact is that there is no such thing as actual inalienable rights, In reality, your “rights” are only as inalienable as others believe them to be.

            However, it is also factual that there are people who believe in the ideal of them and the pursuit of that ideal. Modern liberal democracies are characterized by the coexistence of majority rule and minority rights (or strictly a close approximation of such). The people who subscribe to such a societal organization simply believe certain things can be overridden by the majority while other things cannot. The subscription to this is a social contract.

            You can argue about whether inalienable rights can truly exist but you cannot deny that a form of coexistence between such concepts exists in our world BECAUSE people choose to believe and abide by it as much as they can.

            I don’t want to write what you other sources articulate better and more comprehensively than I can. Feel free to start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule

            I do NOT believe that INACTION equates to responsibility.

            I believe inaction can be considered negligence and negligence is a form of culpability or responsibility.

            I don’t believe that negligence or responsibility can be conflated into absolving or lessening the responsibility of others for their own action or inaction.

            For example, China has to accept that its own weakness was a factor in its historical victimization by foreign powers. This doesn’t mean foreign powers are blameless or not to be condemned. It just means a real-world recognition that we are ultimately responsible to ourselves and what happens to us, that there are limits to how much you can rely on others to respect your interests.

            A woman who takes self-defense classes isn’t absolving a potential rapist of his crime, she’s just being pragmatic, because she’d rather avoid harm than be a victim. Likewise, a minority in opposition to a government policy enabled by a majority should recognize that if they want to avoid the consequences of that policy, they have to do something to prevent the policy. In a democracy, the key way of doing so is to deprive the policy of its majority support. In a democracy, the key way of doing that is for the minority to become the majority.

            If that minority fails to do so, it certainly can be considered a “victim” of the majority, but it can’t say the system didn’t provide them with ways to avoid being the minority and thus “victim”. Their degree of responsibility lies in the extent to which they took advantage of those ways or not.

            The fact that you and I are not selling everything we have to help starving people in third world countries does not mean we are responsible for their deaths.

            I’ve already addressed this with my comments on how real-world understanding of culpability is tied to proximity.

            If you want to know how many people actually “consent” (and are not just forced to live with) the social contract, on tax day, try replacing taxes with a checklist, where each citizen can check which service they wish to continue paying for (and all unchecked services will no longer be provided to their household).

            Your hypothetical illustrates a legitimate point. I believe however you understand the many reasons–which are not all nefarious–for why such direct democracy isn’t practiced in the real world. Society has politicians precisely because individuals do not want to make a decision on every single thing. The social contract here is to give up direct consent for representative consent.

            It’s late and I’m going to stop commenting now. I’m still a bit uncertain as to what our disagreement is here. You already said “your current state of affairs is only partially your own fault” which I agree with. Should I amend a “partial” to my initial comment? I didn’t expect my point that democracy makes people partially responsible for the actions of their democratic government and its representatives to be so controversial.

          • masonman

            “your ‘rights’ are only as inalienable as others believe them to be.”

            true

            “The subscription to this is a social contract”

            However, again, what do you think would happen if government services were acquired by voluntary subscription? I think people “live with” the current state of their environment, that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s actually what they most prefer. The fact that they need to be forced to pay for it is near perfect proof of that.

            “you cannot deny that a form of coexistence between such concepts exists”

            I completely deny it. People can believe logical contradictions exist, but that doesn’t mean they do. It just means they have redefined for themselves one of the elements of the logical contradiction. Inalienable rights, even as simply as a concept – simply as term with a definition – cannot coexist with majority rule (or any form of government, for that matter) by their very definitions.

            Majority rule cannot even make logical contradictions true, it can just convince people that they are true. I would say those are two different things. You can teach a class of students that objects are always repelled by other masses, that wouldn’t magically physically invert the law of gravity. And you cannot say inalienable rights and majority rule can coexist without changing the definition of one of the two terms, which kind of ruins the point of logic and of language.

            “China has to accept that its own weakness was a factor in its historical victimization by foreign powers”

            It is a reality, but again, that doesn’t mean China consented to its victimization. It happened, that doesn’t mean it was a positive thing for most Chinese people. They are not responsible for their victimization.

            If a man is murdered, the responsibility for the murder falls completely on the murderer. One could say “well the victim could have armed himself, or ran, etc.” which is all true, he could have reduced his chance of dying, but I would argue the death itself is still completely the murderers fault, as without him the murder would not have taken place. Simple as that.

            So to respond to your original comment:

            “The great thing about democracy is that by definition, it makes you
            responsible for your current state of affairs and whether or not you
            will change it.”

            No, democracy (and all government) IMPOSES a state of affairs on you, and then demands that you react. If you do not react, you end up living in a box or in a metal cage or six feet underground. Whenever a man is made poor, or is killed, or is put in prison as a result of the system that has been imposed on him, I will not put the blame on those people subjected to the system, when in fact it is those imposing and enforcing the system who are at fault.

            If a plantation is built where the slaves can choose between two different masters every four years, that does not mean they are now responsible for their situation. Their situation was violently imposed upon them. They just live with it because the alternatives are whipping and/or death.

            “‘your current state of affairs is only partially your own fault'”

            When I said that, the portion of stuff that was “partially your fault” had nothing to do with democracy. If you do drugs every day, eat badly, and never clean anything, your bad situation is for the most part your own fault. But if you take care of yourself, are perfectly healthy, etc. and things are still doing awful for you, somebody is draining away your resources, and that somebody in the modern world is almost always another person who is either taking those resources by force or you are donating it. The state takes it by force. The fact that you didn’t beg the state for pennies back on the dollar does not make you responsible, it makes the state responsible.

            “for why such direct democracy isn’t practiced in the real world”

            That is not direct democracy. Direct democracy is also majority rule. Direct democracy is 200 million people all voting to impose certain rules on the other 150 million. My hypothetical is like an electricity bill. Everybody chooses whether they want it or not. If they don’t want it, they don’t pay for it, and they don’t receive it. Simple.

            “Society has politicians precisely because individuals do not want to make a decision on every single thing”

            Except the fact that people go nuts over politics, the fact that in every restaurant and coffee shop in America everybody is saying “politician X should do Y,” shows that people DO want to make those decisions. Maybe you think I am saying people should get handed the policy documents that congressmen receive, and check “yes” or “no.” That is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying in my hypothetical is what every human being in the modern world does on a daily basis: you see a product or service advertised, you choose whether or not to buy it. I just think its silly to put arbitrary limits on where people are allowed to do that.

            Logically, if people “want” democracy, none of them should ever have to be forced to support it. Inherent in “wanting” is that you will voluntarily participate, pay money for, etc. If democracy is the “best” solution, people should be ready and willing to fork over their money to keep that system going because they like it so much better than the alternatives. Apple doesn’t need to force people at gunpoint to buy their stuff because people already want it and like it.

            I don’t think there is a social contract, I think there is a social standard though. Contracts imply consent, standards are just “what we’re used to/what we’re willing to put up with without a fight.” Like a woman who stops fighting during a rape because the real or perceived damage to her from fighting is worse that the damage that happens if she doesn’t fight. She has set her standard, she has not contracted, consented, or otherwise.

          • Kai

            No, democracy (and all government) IMPOSES a state of affairs on you, and then demands that you react.

            1. I said democracy “makes you responsible for your current state of affairs and whether or not you will change it.” I believe this statement remains valid and is not mutually exclusive with your statement.

            2. Why stop at government? Existence itself imposes a state of affairs on you. Nature imposes a state of affairs on you. Your gender, age, race, etc. imposes a state of affairs on you. Your past choices, actions, and inactions impose a state of affairs on you.

            3. And all of these things demand that you react.

            4. Just like democracy.

            5. The nice thing about democracy is that unlike other forms of government, there are institutionalized and protected avenues for citizens to effect change in government and by extension influence the situation or state of affairs that government imposes on you.

            When I said that, the portion of stuff that was “partially your fault” had nothing to do with democracy.

            What you said was this:

            …shows that under a democracy (or socialist state, or whatever) your current state of affairs is only partially your own fault.

            Pretty sure that communicates a relationship with democracy.

            My hypothetical is like an electricity bill. Everybody chooses whether they want it or not. If they don’t want it, they don’t pay for it, and they don’t receive it. Simple.

            I understood your hypothetical. Your hypothetical doesn’t change the validity of my original point. You’re just expressing a criticism of government in general by arguing that there was no initial consent. See #2 above.

            Except the fact that people go nuts over politics, the fact that in every restaurant and coffee shop in America everybody is saying “politician X should do Y,” shows that people DO want to make those decisions.

            You and I live in very different worlds. If everybody in your world is saying “politician X should do Y”, are they doing anything more than talking? If not, what does that say about how much they want to make those decisions?

            What I am saying in my hypothetical is what every human being in the modern world does on a daily basis: you see a product or service advertised, you choose whether or not to buy it. I just think its silly to put arbitrary limits on where people are allowed to do that.

            Okay, and what system with arbitrary limits would have to be imposed on everyone in order to impose on everyone the ability to choose whether or not to buy a product or service that the system will impose on them to see?

            I don’t think there is a social contract, I think there is a social standard though. Contracts imply consent, standards are just “what we’re used to/what we’re willing to put up with without a fight.”

            All covered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

            Please understand that I know the obvious criticisms of the concept of “social contract” and the “tacit consent” upon which it rests. It is as unrealistic to believe people have complete freedom of movement as it is to deny that social contract is a useful model for making sense of people’s relationship to their government, especially in democracies.

            Like a woman who stops fighting during a rape because the real or perceived damage to her from fighting is worse that the damage that happens if she doesn’t fight. She has set her standard, she has not contracted, consented, or otherwise.

            She made a choice and that choice is hers. She is responsible for her choice. A citizen in a democracy who choses to no longer use the tools at their disposal to effect change in that democracy has made a choice and they are responsible for that choice. Do not conflate what you are responsible for with what others are responsible for. What others are responsible for may affect you and what you are responsible for may affect others. What others are responsible for affects themselves and what you are responsible for affects you.

            If at this point you say something like that citizen shouldn’t have to be in that democracy, I refer you back to #2.

          • samuk1000

            Strangely, I argue precisely that CHINESE INACTION DOES = RESPONSIBILITY in a short blog piece for a Policy site. More specifically, it explains the very SPIRIT of Chineseness (or at least Taoism aspect)!

            Isn’t this the Chinese prinple of ‘wu wei’? – Although paradoxically, Chinese responsibility can end up translating as irresponsibility (indirectly), after all, where yang ends, there yin has its beginning!

          • Kai

            Why limit it to “Chinese” inaction?

          • samuk1000

            I credit Chinese with the principle and the successful application thereof, moreover, this is a China related blog. I think I’ve answered this in the comment as well.

          • moeimoei

            I agree, very well said!

          • namepen

            Except that India in its current incarnation does owe a lot of its national identity to institutions and traditions that were developed during the Raj.

            There is a very good case for self determination, but the India of today is not necessarily the best vehicle to acheive that desire.

          • Irvin

            And having the british to rule them again is? It’s like a dude that’s fucked up in life went back to his parents for help instead of fixing his own problems.

        • Ruaraidh

          Good governments should serve the population, not control them. Anyway, there aren’t more than two hundred odd Heads of State in the world, and apart from them we’re all technically ‘controlled by someone else.’

          • Zappa Frank

            british colonies were there to serve people of india, hongkong and so on?

        • NSA

          if the ‘someone else’ is doing a good job, why not?

        • Elijah

          No, the solution is mixing 2 foreign elements to create a superior hybrid with the best of both worlds.

          Hong Kong very successfully done that and was doing that before the chinese started trying to change thing and nickel and dime their freedoms away.

          Constant aggression and posturing will only lead to wider gaps until an inevitable clash which will be mutually destructive.

          “We got help each other, cause if we don’t do it, nobody else will.”

      • steviewah

        I never understood the thinking of trading in one dictator for another dictator. HK never had a true democracy under British rule and the amount of freedom in HK today is the same as in the past. I do support HK in being more democratic and having the right to self-determination, but not under someone else’s rule.

      • The Enlightened One

        So are you saying that Ghandi pretty much “fought” for nothing and should have just shut up and let the British rule?

        You don’t know what you got til it’s gone… sad and true fact.

        LoL… people got tired of the “whities” ruling things… well let’s see how well the Chinese step up to the plate. ;)

        • Edward_Crowley

          BTW, I was not butthurt as you put it by your photo, merely curious. You really did look like that serpent guy…..do you believe in the illuminati too?

      • moeimoei

        Don’t kid yourself, India is not nearly comparable to either China or Hong Kong…

      • Jin Park

        if you knew how the brits treated your people as a whole hundred years ago you wouldn;t be so make such a bold statement

      • Edward_Crowley

        There was a book I read, where it said the british colonials actually excelled better at governing overseas than the politicians did at home. I mean look at HK as an example….it outclasses the UK in every aspect, and the former british governors had a large part to play in that…..meanwhile in England they are still wanking about dithering over what to do about heathrow and whether or not to build an extra runway,.,,,FFS!!!

    • Andrew

      It would be ridiculous if people condemning those protesters had never been to the UK or any western countries themselves… So duh, they need a visa just as Brits need a visa for China

      • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

        They probably never been abroad.

    • moeimoei

      that’s true, I don’t think any reasonable mainlander can think of a reasonable argument to counter that…

      • Kai

        I disagree, especially if we’re talking about “reasonable” mainlanders. The obvious counter to that is that hardly every mainlander who might utter something extreme about how to react to extremist protesters wants to go to the UK, much less think disagreement with the actions of radical protesters means they shouldn’t have any interest in the UK.

        This is simply using conflation of two sentiments to imply hypocrisy in a generalized group. It’s like saying:

        Every expat/foreigner in China: Chinese people are brainwashed, backwards, and uncivilized. By the way, I can’t believe how hard it is to get a Z visa.

        It’s like asking why a ranting expat is still in China. Why CAN’T the expat rant but still want to be in China at the end of the day? Likewise, why can’t mainlanders be annoyed with certain Hong Kong protesters or colonialism and still be interested in visitin the UK? It isn’t necessarily hypocrisy. In fact, making this sort of joke about mainlanders itself can be accused of hypocrisy.

        • moeimoei

          “…why a ranting expat is still in China. Why CAN’T the expat rant but still want to be in China at the end of the day?”

          Because of the following reasons:
          1. if they came from a country with better social/economic welfare, then it is b/c they CANNOT make it in their home country so they come here to put food on the table
          2. they rant b/c putting others down make their own sorry asses feel soooo much better since they were such losers in their own countries
          3. sex tourism (though not sure if they’d have as much luck in China as they would in Vietnam/Thailand/Japan/Korea since a lot of the foreign expats here complain about Chinese girls being material and or that shit)

          why can’t mainlanders be annoyed with certain Hong Kong protesters or colonialism and still be interested in visitin the UK?”

          mmmm…Like I said before I’ve never been a fan of HKers, in North America, they are rude/reckless/unsuccessful/shameless and sometimes just plain stupid and loses a lot face for Chinese people b/c whenever they do something wrong, others still blame Chinese people for the consequences…BUT, mainlanders should mind their behaviors in HK though, I mean buying up milk and or that shit would have annoyed me a great deal…

          wow this is the longest post Í had ever bother to write…hehe

          • Kai

            Your response doesn’t seem to address my disagreement with your original comment. Also, your “reasons” aren’t really reasons for why expants can’t rant but still want to be in China at the end of the day. They look more like criticisms and suspicions you have that you’ve generalized onto all ranting expats.

          • moeimoei

            sorry…you are right, I was having the case of the Mondays yesterday…I guess I don’t really have a legitimate answer for all the expats since they are all different…but I’m sure my answers apply to some of them, no?!

          • Kai

            Of course, that’s why I said you “generalized” them. They certainly apply to some.

          • Edward_Crowley

            1. if they came from a country with better social/economic welfare, then
            it is b/c they CANNOT make it in their home country so they come here
            to put food on the table

            I don’t buy into that argument. Welfare has been and is being cut in some countries. China for single guys with nothing to lose will always appear tempting. For those with a wife and two kids to support, not really.

        • Edward_Crowley

          By the way, I can’t believe how hard it is to get a Z visa.

          And it will continue to get harder, have no doubts.

    • linette lee

      Happy new year to all CS folks.

    • Jin Park

      every mainlander??? what is your logic you imperlist british scumbug, do you think every mainlander want go to britian????? you are a racist SOB that ought to be punished by your incompetent government for a sloppy education. this is why britain despised self-righteous Anglophiles such as yourself. dogmatic brit should stay out of politics, have you taken your medicine or do you need to check yourself in the psychiatric ward of a hospital?

      • Ruaraidh

        Are you enjoying living in Australia; a former British Dominion, where the majority population is of British descent?

        • Jin Park

          Am I enjoying Australia? Yes I am, Aren’t you proud of your colonialism you pom. Saying a majority of Australian population is British is extremely political incorrect. you are such an racist stupid dumb fuck that you have to go to China and demoniaze people there and enjoying whatever you do over there, meanwhile you are in my motherland and geneliaze everybody there to go to Britain? SHAME on yur family and Government for creating such perverted racist self righttous bastard like yourself.

          • Ruaraidh

            I’m Scottish and I do not live in China, nor would I ever. Furthermore if is a fact that 74% of the Australian population are of British Isles origin, this is neither controversial nor politically incorrect. You dare call me racist and a pom in the same comment! You are a gross hypocrite, and if ten generations of your ancestors were brought back to life to see you now, they’d kill themselves out of shame.

          • Jin Park

            if you are scottish why on earth you are saying about every mainlander want a visa to go to britain. that’s not racist at all isn’t it. you better start appreciate these tourist so you mobs of celtics can survive the global economic crysis. frankly scotland is just pile rock that produced SOME acist defact people like yourself and yes i did call you pom. i blieve an eye for an eye. you insult with my race i insult your entire country and your race. i dare to call you anything in the world. to say that you are not racist you are f***&&&&&& delusional my friend. above all i am a hypocrite and i especially target people such as yourself.unlike you i am racist but i dont deny or discrminate or does anything to hurt someone without a valid genuine argument.

          • Ruaraidh

            I can’t believe how upset you are over simple hyperbole.It must have cut a bit close to the bone.

          • Jin Park

            you screw around with my race and my motherland and i will insult you in anyway possible. i believe in a fight an eye for an eye. the soul purpose of this forum and this website is dedicated to expose how chinese live and act in china hence the world acknowleage what it is going on in china. but you use it to geneliaze people and promote racist sterotype you god damn scotish racist defact. i am a hypocrite and i believe an eye for an eye. F u and your family forever.

          • mr.wiener

            God pack it in will you.
            Stop picking fights and flying off the handle and try making a coherent and calm argument. I’m pretty sure if you had called the Scot out on over-generalizations he would have politely conceded instead you have to turn this into racially charged barely legible hissy fit.

          • Jin Park

            i guess i was over the top

          • mr.wiener

            Just a wee bit.

      • Edward_Crowley

        go away you nasty korean racist dog meat eating scum, i’ve seen enough videos from your racist countrymen on youtube….

    • Zen

      The same goes for every American: ‘China is rising economically because they have slave labors. They have human rights issue. They manipulated their currency. They give cheap products. By the way how’s our new home decoration going on, Honey?”

      Honey; “It’s done, babe, I got it done with Walmart, Target, Costco, etc etc etc.”

    • Guest

      You won’t like this, but there’s a new visa requirement. You cannot pretend you are still in China, make a stinking wok mess of your apartment, cook Chinese food, because it is ‘delicious than English food (‘fish and chips’), go always to mainland Chinese restaurants and otherwise fail entirely to integrate into the culture you are travelling to, sticking out like a sore thumb. Oh, and the fees are all the univeristies seem to care about, not your education, so good luck in future with the piece of paper you get at the end, but expect to do all the work yourself. Sign on the line.

  • Andrew

    I guess there’s nothing wrong with standardizing one official language throughout one country. For the time being, Beijing still has jurisdiction over Hong Kong. And wait, isn’t it that many HK people love (traveling to) Taiwan so very much? Well there you go, Mandarin is the official language there as well. So the next question would be: what are those Mandarin-haters truly up against?

    Well, I’d say it may well be our human nature to tend to be obsessed with the morbid feeling of superiority, even most of the time being a weak and faked one. Such uneducated, parochial and racist people are everywhere, in mainland china, in Hong Kong, and all over the internet. Hope you get my point.

    • Irvin

      I got your point, most people need something to be against. Perhaps its better if aliens invaded, then all the people of earth would be united.

      That was the moral and the polt of “watchmen”.

    • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

      I guess they are against being incorporated into CCP China and having to have their thoughts and action be inline with CCP China. You can see that already happening if you are in HK and talk to people who have lived pre and post handover.

  • Irvin

    we don’t think hong kong is better under ccp rule, but waving a colonial flag and calling themselves hong kongnese is just pathetic and selfish. If they see the CCP as really such a big problem then they should be the voice for all of china not just themselves.

    Historical or present, they ARE chinese.

    • Paulos

      The words “China” and “Chinese” are so nebulous these days. It doesn’t help that certain concepts in Mandarin like zhonghua and tianxia are equally nebulous. Semantics aside, what’s important is that many permanent residents of Hong Kong have a different understanding of what it means to be Chinese than non-residents. It may be that separate Chinese and Hong Kong-based identities are not mutually exclusive to them.

    • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

      I’m sure if they had a flag that represented a time when they were independent, they would use that instead. Just they didn’t have that.

      And waving the flag of another country would have just sent even more wrong signals.

      • don mario

        this. it aint rocket science people.

      • Irvin

        That’s exactly my point! They were never a country by themselves, they were chinese and part of china. Contesting a nation’s sovergnity just to express disatisfaction is childish and selfish.

        • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

          That’s exactly what the British thought of those colonists in the Americas. Look how well that turned out.

          • Irvin

            Then americans created their own flag and america was a colony not originally part of england.

          • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

            A colony that was considered British territory, populated by British immigrants. And then the British started stationing soldiers in places the colonists didn’t want them. Colonists didn’t like it, mainland Brits considered them childish-you see where I’m going?

          • Irvin

            They (americans) got an army, you see where I’m going?

          • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

            No, back then they had some people that knew which end of the gun shot stuff when it went ‘bang’. That’s not an army.

        • moeimoei

          To be fair Irvin, while I don’t condone HKers’ actions, but I think mainlanders should give HKers more space and respect their culture, instead of forcefully trying to integrate them into “mother China”.

          • Irvin

            You need to fight for your rights and when I said “fight” I don’t mean going into a gun fight with a knife because that’s what they’re doing.

            I don’t dispute CCP creates disatisfaction amongst some of the HK people I’m just saying the way they go about it is all wrong.

      • Kai

        Understandable. So maybe they should create their own flag, for their own movement, rather than waving a flag that has well-known colonialist connotations and baggage?

        Unless they’re fine with those colonialist connotations and baggage, and they are fine with saying they prefer British colonialism than PRC governance. What do you think it is? Do we think these people are smart and know what they are doing or do we assume them so fanatic and narrow-minded in their desire to express dissent that they don’t consider the ramifications of the symbols they use to champion their cause?

        • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

          When I read the article again, I noticed they DID use their own flag.
          Maybe they do think it’s enough to just take the colonial flag and slap a Chinese dragon on it, I don’t know enough about the actual movement to know what they want specifically. Do they just want the PLA out, do they want genuine independence, or do they just want a return of the old regime? If I knew this, I’d have a better answer.

          • Kai

            Really? I just ctrl+f “flag” and re-scanned the article but I think it says they used colonial flags. The Dragon-Lion flag is also a colonial flag.

            The group is kinda new and rather small. 600 likes on Facebook? That’s nothing and Facebook likes are kinda worthless too anyway. Though the group overall denies wanting HK independence, If you look at photos of some of their members, some of them hold up signs demanding just that. It’s safe to say they’re not exactly the most organized and consistent. The article here says they were protesting the PLA wanting a dock for military use in Central and them opposing it. I think they’re larger cause is just anti-mainlanders in general, or at least what they perceive as mainland “changes” to HK.

        • samuk1000

          But Kai, isn’t only misinformed mainlanders who carry the baggage? No one else has a problem. Alienating themselves, they hold onto their bitter resentment, while refusing to look honestly at their own part, denying any wrongdoing while casting the judgment on others. This is the Qing dynasty all over – a total sign of weakness.

          • Kai

            You’re descending into hysterics irrelevant to the discussions you are responding to.

          • samuk1000

            And no doubt under totalitarians like yourself, that would make me subject to your ignorance and prejudices.

          • Probotector

            Lol, pot calling the kettle black there Kai, at least your response was brief for once.

    • samuk1000

      They are ethnically Chinese, it doesn’t mean they are from China, or even Greater China (i.e. China, Taiwan and Hong Kong).

  • Kai

    I don’t think anyone thinks life in Hong Kong is necessarily “better” under CCP rule than British rule. What many people think is that HK being returned to the country it was wrongfully taken from during the age of imperialist colonialism is worth the expected changes that will result in going from British to PRC rule. Put another way, sometimes people will willingly sacrifice practical things for principles and ideals.

    Other people won’t.

    Objectively, yeah, things were pretty bad for normal Hong Kongers under British rule for much of HK’s colonial history. Subjectively, you could argue things were still better in HK than they were in mainland China for much of the PRC’s existence but there’s no denying that Chinese people weren’t exactly treated as peers and thus there’s plenty of legitimate grievance against colonialism. Watch HK TV serials and period movies and you’ll see how villified the British are in the popular HK consciousness.

    What happened is that things in HK got better over time as attitudes about colonialism, human rights, human equality, and all those enlightened ideals Western society prides itself upon became mainstream in the UK. Changes in attitudes at home changed (improved) the UK’s governance and treatment of HK’s local denizens.

    What many HKers can be proud of is that even as they remember that British colonialism was pretty awful, where they were treated as second-class citizens, exploited, and British colonial corruption was rampant, it’s not like there weren’t good byproducts and it’s not like the British didn’t improve in their governance and treatment.

    The UK endeavored to institutionalize certain civil rights and freedoms as it became apparent that they would hand HK back to “communist” China. Part of it was genuine care for the people they had governed for so long, but part of it was political posturing, a sort of subversive “fuck you” to a Cold War enemy of ostensibly different political ideology. There was and remains hope that a more “liberal democratic” HK will over time spur political change in the PRC. Like teaching a child to change his or her parent. Yet another part of it, the practical part, is that it was in the UK’s economic interests for HK to have a political, economic, and social system that resembled its own. Business could still be continued without interruption in this case.

    It isn’t a coincidence that HK is more prosperous and has a higher standard of living than mainland China, and the PRC recognizes that this is largely a credit to capitalism.

  • Kai

    No, she wasn’t. Whatever her perceived grievances are with the Chinese government, she shouldn’t be taking it out on a little girl for speaking whatever language she wants with her own mother. Would she have done so if the girl was speaking something other than Mandarin? No, so all she did was conflate her resentment and likely prejudice against mainlanders with an innocent girl exercising her freedom to use whatever language she wants.

    We also hear Hong Kongers “bigging up” how they are so much more tolerant, international, and enlightened comapred to mainlanders, yet this HK woman decided to be petty, intolerant, and bigoted.

    The point if it isn’t abundantly clear here is to not make assumptions and conflate different things together. Whatever the ills of the Chinese government doesn’t justify how she criticized the girl, nor does it justify you defending her behavior. Two wrongs don’t make a right and all that.

  • moeimoei

    waving a British Colonial flag isn’t really protesting for independence, it is protesting for the return of the former “master”…these people are confused…Hong Kong was never a “country” btw, it was a colony and now it is a city…
    this is sad…

    • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

      They should make their own independence flag, but I guess the Hkers prefered their ‘white master’ to their new ‘yellow master’.

  • namepen

    The Muslim population is relatively small, why do non-brits keep parroting this nonsense that the UK will become a Muslim country.

    Some of the largest strams of immigrants into the UK are from the US, Ireland, Germany, Poland and China. So a better question would be who isn’t trying to immigrate to the UK.

    • don mario

      because uk is overly PC to the point of being fair game for mockery. thats why. its completely deserved.

      • namepen

        Or rather because the real deep seated racism that underlies those views are more prevalent in the former colonies and on the continent.

        • don mario

          racism and being overly PC are two separate problems.

    • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

      Actually yeah I do want to know the answer why ANYONE immigrates there right now? Didn’t parliament basically just give a giant “Fuck You” to everyone that wasn’t upper class recently? Everything is expensive out there, double so in London. Why immigrate and not wait out the shitstorm?

      • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

        Well, get in now and change the shit storm with your vote!

  • moeimoei

    “Hong Kongese first”, what does that even mean? they should get first serving of everything???!!! Cuz I’m pretty sure they are 2d class citizens in both British Hong Kong and in North America…not a big fan…

    • socali

      It means no priority to mainland locusts.

      • moeimoei

        hey, giving priority to mainlanders is hong konger’s fault to begin with….why would anyone be given priority??? don’t they know the merit system???
        w/e turns you on….if you feel calling others locusts makes your sorry ass superior after being looked down by white people….

      • moeimoei

        wtf are on a site created by “locusts”? are you sadistic?

      • Kai

        You guys do understand that the more you use “locusts” as an epithet, the less useful it becomes as a description of behavior and the more it becomes a generalized–and thus pointless–slur like towelhead, sandniggers, and wetbacks, right?

        Hong Kongers should be more enlightened than this.

        And seriously, what “priority” is given to mainlanders in HK anyway? There really isn’t any except that which is bought with money, which is pretty much true everywhere. Nevermind that the name of this group is just a generalized slogan, the basic cause they have is simply that they feel they have to share resources with mainlanders and they don’t want to. In many things, entirely reasonable and even persuasive arguments can be made, especially because what they feel is not remotely alien to many Chinese people in China, but let’s not pretend it is not a form of protectionism and nativism.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)

    • linette lee

      Hong Kongese first meaning those who are born and living in Hong Kong paying taxes financially supporting the HK gov’t should get HK public benefits first on the list. We have a very huge problem where mainlanders come to HK to give birth just to get a birth certificate so the child is entitled to everything. Meanwhile neither the China parents pay tax to HK or living in HK. They just go to HK to collect free benefits like gov’t subsidized housing, free public school for their kids, free medical care. They are crowding out the HK people out of using HK gov’t benefits the HK people paid tax for. The HK people can’t even send their kids to HK public schools and often on waiting list. Can’t use the emergency room because the non tax payer mainlanders use them to give birth or for free. It is extremely horrible for the hongkese.

      • Brad pitt

        Canada has had the same problem as you guys…Except the “locusts” who use government benefits and don’t end up working/paying taxes in Canada are from HK.The father usually works in HK, Kids end up returning to HK after graduation but keep Canadian citizenship. Always makes me laugh when HK people complain about this… I guess it’s not the same HK people complaining about mainlanders AND coming to Canada but still…

        • linette lee

          The HK people “bought” their citizenships from your Canada gov’t. It’s called investment immigration. They need to pay your Canada gov’t millions of dollars of investment for each citizenship. That is why you have Vancouver AKA Hongouver. The Hongkongese were the people who build up Vancouver. Which your Canada gov’t is very proud of and used it as one of main Canada tourist attraction. Very good for your economy. Say thank you to the HongKongese.

          • Brad pitt

            Millions of dollars? Not even, up until recently I believe it was only a 500k 5 year loan. I think it has gone up to 1 mill now. Usually done through Quebec’s immigration system even though they won’t stay in Quebec. So, Vancouver doesn’t even benefit from that investment. Anyways I have no ill feelings towards Hongers, but if you can’t see the irony..

            You are right though, their are alot of legit investments made by HK people that have done a great deal in building Vancouver, I’m sure there are alot of investments made by mainlanders in HK too? I don’t think your original comment was complaining about those kinds of mainlanders and neither is mine complaining about those kind of HK people…

            Mainlanders going to HK and spending all that money is very good for your economy, Say thank you to Mainlanders =).

          • linette lee

            Hkese who took out the million dollar loans will have to pay back 2 millions due to interest. That’s more $$$$$ for your gov’t.

          • Elijah

            While Vancouver is often touted in Canada and outside of Canada as being one of the best cities ever, most Canadians tend to avoid it unless they live there.

            It’s massively expensive to live in, the chinese markets are filthy/smelly and there’s an inordinate level of crime (smuggling, counterfeiting, human trafficking, etc.). I wouldn’t go so far as to point to any one group for these problems, but as you pointed it out, it’s called Hongcouver.

            Personally, I think we should abolish all investment/business visas and keep a VERY close eye on those with student visas. Tired of seeing all the abuses of the Canadian system, people coming here, not to be a part of Canadian society, but rather just to take advantage of what they perceive to be a weakness.

          • linette lee

            Sorry to hear that. As it was pointed out most hkers just invest to get the citizenship then go back to Hk. Recent years most immigrants are Asians from other countries and not Hkers. I am sure Hkers are sad what is happening to the city they build and invest so much money in decade ago.

          • Elijah

            I don’t mean to discredit anyone who really did and does contribute to the growth of Canada (no matter who they are), but Hong Kongers did NOT build Vancouver.

            As you’ve pointed out, most who came in the 80s and 90s did so just to get a visa and then went back to Hong Kong (much like mainlanders do today). This is not building anything, just taking advantage of what’s already there to the detriment of the people already living there.

            I love Hong Kongers, some of the happiest time in my life was spent in Hong Kong and I support their movement towards more independence and freedom. However, I don’t hesitate for one second to deny the negative impact that the mass immigration has had on Vancouver (and Toronto). Trust me when I say that this sentiment is far from uncommon in the rest of the Canadian populace.

          • Brad pitt

            It’s mostly the wealthy fu er dai type immigrants that take advantage of the system. We shouldn’t be quick to put all immigrants in the same basket, I’ve met many international students from modest backrounds who love this country and want to be apart of it. They really want to come here to study, immigrate and make a better life for themselves. The ones that go on to make Canada their home are some of the most vocal about the way people from their home countries abuse the Canadian system, as they should be, they came here the hard way. although we get a lot of fu er dai mainlander students/investment immigrants, there are also much more of the good types of immigrants i mentioned before coming from the mainland than anywhere else.

            Recently though, there has been rising anti-Chinese sentiment as you have mentioned in your other post, but this is the wrong way for Canadians to see things. Our own government is the one to blame for allowing too much foreign real estate ownership, satellite families etc…

            BTW Mainland Chinese investment in resources has done more for the Canadian economy than anything Hongers have done. It was also Mainland Chinese who first immigrated here and built the railroads. So Linette your “locusts” did more to build Vancouver than Hongers.

          • Elijah

            Yes, I call those people Canadian as well, not immigrants because it’s all about intent, not what your visa says.

          • Brad pitt

            Are you serious? You actually think the Canadian Gov Gives the Hk immigrants a 1 million dollar loan then has them pay it back plus interest to immigrate here? WOW! Other way around -the interest… I’m just going to stop replying because I don’t want to get nasty…
            But please entertain me on how HK people built Vancouver and I should be so thankful to them for making Vancouver such a great tourist attraction, seeing how all the major tourist attractions were here before The influx of HK immigrants and how none of the top corporations/employers in BC (the province Vancouver is in) are owned by Hongers. I guess driving up the price of real estate while keeping your business/work overseas has made it one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in,in comparison to the average wage but,I don’t think that is something to brag about… I guess all the triad gangs here help the illegal economy, again not something to be too proud of…

          • moeimoei

            well said, Brad Pitt! I love your movies :)

          • Brad pitt

            They are pretty amazing

          • moeimoei

            Those HKers should get the fuck out, they make good/hard working tax payers like me want to rip their fukcing head open!
            Those people are the biggest hypocrites, protesting for mainland locusts and become a locust in Canada…driving up prices, cannot speak English properly, don’t know how to smile, don’t know how to treat people with manners, yelling at people who can’t speak Cantonese even though it’s Canada when everyone and everything speaks FUCKING ENGLISH!!!!!!
            FUCK OFF!!!!

        • moeimoei

          Pshhh…at the end day, it’s the Chinese people’s face they are losing…

      • sfphoto1

        Linette:

        But don’t you think the HongKongese are unfairly blaming the mainland immigrants when it is the HK gov’t who should have acted to prevent the abuse of the system in the first place? This is similar to the “illegal immigrant” problem in the U.S. where Mexicans would give birth in the U.S. and their children would be entitled to automatic U.S. citizenship which makes them eligible for all kinds of benefits such as welfare, public school, etc.

        And by the way, even though the illegal immigrants abuse the system, most retail spending and property investments in HK also come from the pockets of mainland visitors. So it’s not fair to say that mainland chinese are just parasites because they do contribute to HK’s economy.

        Lastly, I think these radical protesters show bad taste and poor judgement on their part. If Hong Kongese want more political freedom, they should become more politically mature which is sadly lacking with these HK people.

  • socali

    I first went to Hong Kong before the handover. I noticed how harmonious everything was.The rule of law was respected, the native HKers were well taken care of, and their was just a general sense that the city itself was prosperous. Fast forward to 2013 and their is disharmony. Mainlanders have successfully sowed discord in HKs political scene, mainlanders have stolen jobs away from the HKers, and the city itself is slowly its identity. I can see why these people are upset. To put it frankly, China is destroying Hong Kong.

    • Kai

      Similar to what some Americans say about Mexicans and some British say about Muslims. This is more nationalistic nostalgia.than fact. HKers were bitching about all sorts of shit back then too. Mainlanders were also “stealing” jobs away from HKers long before the Handover as well. Just as HK’s hostess girls and prostitutes. I’m not saying there aren’t things that arguably have gotten “worse”, especially from the perspective of HK locals and their self-interest, but there is a bit too much exaggeration here.

      I would argue that there definitely may have been a general sense of prosperity for the city during that era, but that was larger than HK’s relationship with the mainland. It was the era of Asian Tigers, for which HK belonged to. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers

      Want to know why things “felt” worse after the Handover? The ’97 Asian Financial Crisis. This had nothing to do with the Handover itself, but was a wider regional economic consequence. So much of the “growth and prosperity” that was enjoyed pre-Handover came to bite not just HK but also SG,TW, and SK in the ass. It merely coincided ith the Handover.

      HK recovered from that nonetheless thanks to its political-economic model, which Beijing has largely preserved, and faster than other places. Just as things were getting better, the 2008 crisis hit, for which you can blame America (though it was hardly just America’s fault, and it’s not like HKers weren’t party to the same excesses being a major international financial center itself).

      HKers should also understand that much of HK’s wealth is because it acted as a middle-man for the expoitation of mainland resources and labor throughout its history. There is way too much arrogance amongst some HKers in thinking everything good about HK came about solely through their own genius or British influence. HK is what it is because of the role it has played, and that role includes a great deal of inputs from people and places outside of the HKers and British themselves.

    • moeimoei

      “mainlanders have stolen jobs away from the HKers”
      Only have themselves to blame if they can’t even out compete bunch of so called “locusts” …

  • Paulos

    I didn’t see this video, but as a parent, if any stranger started harassing my child I wouldn’t hesitate to cuff them in the face regardless of age, gender, or political affiliation.

    That being said, public transportation does bring out the worst in people.

  • bujiebuke

    I understand that people in Hong Kong want to avoid their country from being made into another Chinese city and that they enjoy their living standards. But I just can’t wrap my head around these people who wave the old colonial flag and beg for their former white masters to come back. Even if there was no mistreatment from the British during colonial period, it seems backwards to think that people want to be shackled and chained again.

    • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

      They should make their own ‘independence’ flag i guess. But the colonial flag is used to make a statement. I guess they rather have their ‘white master’ than their ‘yellow master’ they have now.

      • Jobjed

        That’s precious coming from a bunch of yellows themselves.

    • Eileithyia

      that’s because your are not from Hong Kong. People are losing their human right over there. Atleast with the white masters, they have more freedom.

      Who is in charge doesn’t really matter to them. they just want more freedom.

      • bujiebuke

        “Atleast with the white masters, they have more freedom.”

        – Again, this idea of preferring one master over the other is baffling to me. Why not fight for the right to have your own freedom, be independent, be your own master?

        • KamikaziPilot

          I believe this way of thinking is a variation of “Stockholm syndrome”. Same general idea. Also maybe they just don’t have confidence that they can govern themselves. Just like I think a lot of mainlanders have the “crabs in a bucket” mentality.

        • Eileithyia

          they want independent. They didn’t ask the UK for help. The flag is to show the communist party that they dislike them and want them out. HK people don’t hate China, they just hate the communist party. If China let them go independent, they will take it in a heartbeat. And they will not ask to return to UK rule.

  • RothschildIsMoney

    “I am Liberalism, the destroyer of worlds.”

  • chandlerpatrick

    Canada is doing ok.

  • mr.wiener

    Really!?! …..gosh all those times I’ve told bogans in Australia to go f*ck themselves when they’re picking on immigrants for not speaking English, I was wrong?
    Whodathunk.

  • linette lee

    Hong kongers were never slaves of UK master. We were very happy with how things were run enjoying our freedom of speech, press, and all the other good things under UK/HK system. Something the mainland Chinese can’t understand because they never experienced that level of freedom.

  • linette lee

    I agreed. We have no problem marrying mainlanders. So many marriages between Hongkongers, Taiwan, and China. It’s the China gov’t that we are worrying about. Many don’t want to move into China to live permanently. For a short while it’s okay but not permanent.

  • linette lee

    We were never slaves to British. No such thing as a happy slave. lol.

    • KamikaziPilot

      As far as HKers, maybe not slaves but definitely subservient. How are you doing linette? long time no see.

      • linette lee

        Hello my sweety, I am fine thank you. How was your holiday?

        • KamikaziPilot

          My holiday was good but I didn’t get the present I wanted most. Glad to see you’re still alive, how long didn’t you post? For like 3 months or something. We were getting worried about you.

          • linette lee

            hahaha..no. Since Thanksgiving Holidays. I was on vacation and went back to HK for two weeks for family. What did you do during holiday. Were you a bad boy that’s why you didn’t get what you wanted. lol.

          • KamikaziPilot

            I didn’t really do anything special, it was just normal days for me. Yes I was a bad boy so I didn’t get what I wanted, or maybe nobody likes me :( BTW for some reason when you reply to me I don’t get any notification in Disqus like I do with other posters. I think because your page is set to “private”. Maybe you can change your Disqus settings so I (and others)can see when you reply to me, or maybe not if you want to keep being like a ghost.

  • Kai

    Your comments are filled with interesting information and perspectives but please do not use multiple aliases when commenting. It is against our comment policy.

    Now, onto your comment:

    Actually, you have the difference between the British Empire and Chinese Empire somewhat backwards. There is definitely significance in the idea that British monarchs had to be in good with the Church, but Chinese emperors were bound by the Mandate of Heaven.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

    If you’ve studied European history as well as Asian history, you’ll know this is essentially the Asian version of Divine Right, though with one interesting difference. I’ll just quote:

    The Mandate of Heaven is similar to the European notion of the Divine Right of Kings in that both sought to legitimize rule using divine approval. However, the Divine Right of Kings granted unconditional legitimacy, whereas the Mandate of Heaven was conditional on the just behavior of the ruler who was guided divinely by his dreams.

    Overall, I’d say Chinese dynasties lasted about as long as European dynasties, if not longer in certain regards.

    I also think you’re overstating the “tradition of mutual respect between master and servant” in the West and am amused by your pop culture reference to Batman and Alfred. I think you may simply be more familiar with Western media and Western TV tropes than you are with Chinese media and Chinese TV tropes. The idea of the benevolent master and the loyal servant is not remotely uncommon in Chinese history, narratives, or TV. So many Chinese period dramas feature variants of this trope as part of their plots.

    • samuk1000

      Kai, you make a very interesting point here regarding the heavenly mandate. I believe it applies to the CURRENT GOVERNMENT of China too, due to a kind of imperial ‘leadership archetype’ – as Chinese, the government, at some level, are acting out the rulership of the heavenly ordained emperor. This is a conservative standpoint that I sometimes take when writing on China, but it has legs.

      • Kai

        The mandate of heaven is just a superstitious variant of the notion of social contract, that government governs by the will or acquiesence of the governed. It certainly applies to the current government, and frankly it should apply to all current governments.

        • samuk1000

          It would be useful to call it a ‘superstitious variant’ if all scholars were atheists and desired to minimize the spiritual aspects of governance, which are so potently displayed under the ‘mandate of heaven’ framework. For example the ritual pilgrimage visitation of the Emperor to the Temple of Heaven at the TianTan in Peking to pray each year for good harvest, fulfilling a heavenly mandate as the Son of Heaven seeks to fulfil the very Will of Heaven. Under a strictly atheistic framework, however, such richness in Chinese spirituality is reduced to such terms as the one you have used: ‘superstitious variant’, implying irrationality under what can only be deemed an archaic post-positivist framework. This prevents the researcher from maintaining an open mind, by their own subjective bias.

  • Kai

    Did you intend to respond directly to me and what I said? I’m pretty sure the point of what I wrote was not to compare a tiny city to the entire mainland China.

    • samuk1000

      But Kai, isn’t that precisely what China does with regard to GDP? Moreover, isn’t what China, Russia and the US do with regard to the Olympics, in which the UK easily takes gold when it comes to per capita? This is quite typical Chinese ‘double standards’ in play, it seems. The fundamental question here is: why is a Japanese man worker, or a Korean man worker, or a Singaporean man worker, or a Hong Kongese man worker WORTH MORE PER HOUR OF HIS LIFE than a Chinese? That is a key question. And THAT is why Chinese are fighting a battle. It is not about comparison of cities vs. countries, but one city (or countries) person and per capita income vs. a Chinese mainlander. Why is a Chinese person worth less than a Taiwanese? Or a Japanese? How to solve this?

      It is the same with regard to Chinese foreign exchange reserves, or Chinese foreign direct investment. For some bizarre reason the CCP marketeers have caused others to ‘believe’ (erroneously) that either of these are large by comparative standards. What a complete joke. Chinese foreign exchange reserves are tiny compared to liquid assets of western financial firms, and Chinese outward FDI is minute – can’t be compared even to assets of say, the Netherlands or Royal Dutch Shell – and we’ve had those assets abroad for decades. China has so many problems to solve, these need to be focused on, not blaming others and trying to say China is ‘so good’ when it is really not comparatively, just isn’t! Don’t get me wrong I LOVE CHINA. I really do. China is MY LIFE. But please, be factual and solve problems, don’t perpetuate falsehoods. That would be my slogan if I were in the Propaganda department, not these garbage articles pumped out about China taking over – what crass garbage. China is badly and severely struggling to gain business outside of China (oh, except the oh-so-attractive African coastline – erm – but who wants to make slaves of blacks really, wasn’t that the wrong thing to do I thought we all decided some time ago when we came to support Mandela – at least in UK?) While the rest of the world evolved spiritually, mentally, materially and everything else, what happened there China? At least you know how to have a lot of kids, that is good for the western gene pool when you come over, at least.

      • Kai

        You don’t seem to be addressing anything I said and are instead voicing your various grievances or criticisms about China.

        While the rest of the world evolved spiritually, mentally, materially and everything else, what happened there China?

        Most of the “rest of the world” is in most regards more similar to China than it is to the UK. You need to stop thinking the developed “Western” or “first-world” is “the rest of the world”. It’s a particularly weak version of the appeal to popularity fallacy.

        • samuk1000

          OK, well the rest of the world minus the archaic and the barbaric. And Kai, prejudice against weakness again showing from you – another of the traits hypothesis I am developing here. Adopting ‘western’ Darwinism in order to pride oneself on ‘strength’ of argument. A particularly unoriginal line to take. I concede orientalism and east-west thinking can be unhelpful. However, the east-west orientalist framework is just illustrative. I would include the fruit-festivalists of Thailand in as much as I would include the Americans as having been able to evolve while China got left behind. People do not thrive under socialist communism/Marxist-Leninism, whatever you want to call it. This is established and mainstream. Please tell me you are not calling for reversion back to it like leftist authors who want to scrap markets and return to state control in China, when already the grip has been lost, its just the state doesn’t realise it yet.

          • Kai

            1. I consider your rhetoric at times to be archaic and barbaric.

            2. I don’t know what you’re referring to with “prejudice against weakness”.

            3. Why do you think I believe people thrive under socialist communist/Marxist-Leninism? What exactly have I said to suggest this? Please reconsider your straw-man.

          • samuk1000

            Kai I am not in a dialogue soleyl with you. I thank you for responding to what you identify as points, which you are correct, may well be formed with subjectivity as their basis at times, as I am not an expert on imperialism or Hong Kong, or even history. However, I do not concede that my arguments are fallacious. This is denied. This is an attempt to socially denigrate my entire thesis on the matter which is that the resentment against British is unfounded given the facts, rather it is based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation on what actually occurred. Especially, I dispute any notion that ‘imperialism’ was inherently and deliberately harmful to the Chinese best interests in the 19th and 20th centuries, specifically in Hong Kong, in spite of Britain’s economic interest in China. This was to be of benefit to the Chinese and the ‘harms done’ are misperceptions based on imperial ignorance, yes, but not harm in the sense that we could look at harms done by China to those mentioned in other comments I have made – i.e. conventional harms. Seeking trade and diplomacy on equal terms are very different from the territorialism that is implicate in the concept of ‘wrongful taking’ of places. This is particularly on the point in question on the ‘wrongdoing’ of Britain. The allusion here concerns the territorial nature of the dispute in part, and secondarily, the issue of opium as a substance prone to misuse, dependency and consequently, disease, death and increasing economic dependence. It finds its crucible in the apportioned guilt by the Chinese side of which Gelber speaks: ‘catalogue of alleged western aggression and exploitation’. I have told you I am not debating academically. However, I do think that our discussion amongst others does render service to part of the purpose of this blog, you will agree, in terms of exposition and bringing to the fore the commonalities between two perhaps opposing positions, and trying to find partial reconciliation among them, an absence of absolute agreement on the detail notwithstanding.

            You identify that I have grievances with China. This is refuted. I do not have grievances with China per se. However, to clarify, I do submit respectfully to those whose comments are anti-British, or who even subscribe to the idea that Hong Kong was ‘wrongfully taken’ relating to Hong Kong are unfounded and fuelled by subjective and nationalistic notions without basis and without the benefit of fullness in some of the facts, or even the desire for that, simply what I will term a nationalistic policy called ‘the resentment’. What you refer to as extremes are not extremes, but examples of acts of cooperation between Chinese and British interests in Hong Kong and ways in which a colonial system forming a governance basis in Hong Kong provided a means for Chinese voices to be heard rather than stifled.

            Your own straw man is your idea that I purport an argument whereby ‘so long as we helped you more than we harmed you then that is ok’ (paraphrase). If we take this back to Hong Kong at its formation as a colony, we are talking about a couple of thousand farmers and fishermen, living alongside several hundred British. I do not see that they were harmed. The benefits upon new immigrants from China mainland were conferred instantly in that they could find work, they could become informal subjects of the Empire and they would stand to gain from the trade opportunities.The Chinese accepted further territorial cessation with very little by way of resistance, and they were perfectly able to take a seat at the negotiating table. This did not take place due to British territorial ambitiousness, indeed such was opposed by Britain, in parliament and by action. However, Britain did need to protect the interests of the colony and by proxy the Chinese of Hong Kong, in my view. Thus a degree of expansion beyond the permanent cessation of the island became a neccessity, not a way to humiliate China – this is absolutely key to understand in healing ‘the resentment’. Being ‘forced to cede’ is another source of resentment. I am arguing, in your view fallaciously and arrogantly, that there was little by way of wrongdoing in this, at least I think that is the case. Or perhaps you think a flat denial of wrongdoing is a failure to properly reflect and show remorse for perceived harms done. What I am saying is that Britain’s part in treaties, which benefitted Britain’s position, yes, also served to protect China from outside forces which had their own ambitions that were far less savoury than Britain’s desire for economic and diplomatic openness and fair and reasonable treatment, respectively.

            Making the supply of opium to meet the demand of addicts a focal point is a sleight of misdirection to support ‘the resentment’ policy as well. Shipping, retail and finance were economic activities which up to this day have provided endless scope for Chinese empire building amongst families. The price to pay for this was living under the auspices of the colonial hierarchy, which insisted as part of its leadership in its own way being the best way. This is viewed as at the detriment to Chinese, however, they did not need to come to Hong Kong and would not have had there not been at least better prospects for them there as a result of the cessation and British rule there. To then blame and resent British arrogance is to say ‘beggars can’t be choosers’. What I am saying is that local Chinese were not beggars, and secondly, they had opportunities ot oppose the rulings of the ruling force at the time, not at first, that is sure, but gradually. The basis, I am presuming for the ‘harm’ you seem to purportedly argue are justifications for ‘the resentment’ are threefold: 1) the territorial expansion by British interests; 2) the imperial nature of the colonies and 3) the opium trade. I hope I’ve begun to address the first 2.

            Under your thesis, it appears that what would have been the ‘right thing to do’ would have been to allow other forces to have taken over, forces with an openly capricious (against China) nature at a time of competition to trade with China. Or perhaps you simply agree with the biased notion that all foreigners should be tarred with the same arrogant, evil, imperialist brush, undoubtedly the most fallacious of all arguments and the basis of my own need to begin to decide to voice my arguments and policy suggestions as they are very gradually worked out. You can play a ‘straw man’ card again on that, but actually these are the voices you appear to support whenever you take the position that imperialism was wrong in all of its aspects when taken from the initial standpoint that China was ‘unfairly treatied’ (sic), coerced and so on, which is a mainstream assumption and again one I’d like to see challenged. The assumption is Chinese weakness, inability to negotiate and lack of power. However, Britain failed in most of its economic and diplomatic ambitions with regard to China. Again, I am way out of time and I challenge you again, if you are the scholar you seem to be, to publish academically, rather than on a one-sided commercial venture blog comment system, and then we can take the matter with a view to properly influencing policymakers, rather than netizens. It is up to you to grasp this as an opportunity for cooperation or to criticize vainly without the benefit of a fuller and freer, impartial and peer-reviewed way to debate this.

            As for the Opium trade, I question the legality argument. That the centre has ‘outlawed’ it, does not mean that local officialdom does not sanction it from a position of authority and representation, or that local economy did not benefit from it for the benefit of their own bequest. To call on an international law argument and apply it in hindsight is a way to substantiate the argument ex-post and thereby bolster the nationalistic/anti-British sentiment position, I question it as having genuine contribution or academic merit beyond that premise. This is especially a valid line of argument as regards Guangdong and its attitude to foreign trade, whether or not backed or opposed by imperial Chinese law. It would be a double standard to apply the legal argument upon Britain without applying it to the Chinese of Guangdong on an equal basis. Thus any ‘trade guilt’ – must be borne by both Guangdongese and British. It has to be understood that in Britain, Opium was not morally hazardous as a legal substance. It was the Chinese that liked to smoke it giving rise to an economy for it. The responsibility lies squarely with the user and his demands in at least as much, if not more with the supplier when the supplier is itself opposed to illegal trade of opium which was harmful the the East India monopoly in addition to parliamentary sympathy towards the Chinese case for embargo. With regard to the legal use of opium as tincture, I need further time to source the legitimacy of my argument on that. However, I will further add that the British

          • Kai

            When you reply to me, the assumption is that you are talking to me. Plus, I’m the only one who gets a notification about your comment. If you intend aspects of your comment to be directed at others, you can use the @ mention feature to make that clear so there won’t be confusion.

            I don’t think anyone can escape subjectivity. When we talk about “objective” and “subjective, it is usually relative. Colloquially, if you feel my language “betrays” my subjectivity, please explain what my subjectivity is and provide links to those comments that substantiate your accusation. You can obtain the link from the timestamp of each comment.

            In general, I don’t think my comments about HK or imperialism are subjective in the colloquial sense of being obviously biased. Instead, I feel I’m quite objective in giving credit where its due and recognizing things as they are, that there are shades of gray, not clear black and white on any side of such complicated historical issues.

            I have accused some of your arguments to be fallacious and I believe i’ve named the fallacy when doing so. Therefore, if you don’t think they are and wish to defend them, you should easily be able to argue why what you said does not meet the definition of the fallacies I named.

            This is an attempt by you to socially denigrate my entire thesis on the matter which is that the resentment against British is unfounded given the facts, rather it is based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation on what actually occurred on the detail.

            “Socially denigrate”? No, not really. When I accuse you of a fallacy, the simple check is if it meets the definition. Counteraccusing me of “socially denigrating” does not change whether or not what you said meets the definition of my accusation. If I say your balloon is blue, accusing me of socially denigrating your Valentine’s Day gifts does not change whether or not your ballooon is blue.

            I understand you have a thesis. What I’ve been doing is calling the premises you use for your thesis into question, therefore challenging the conclusions you advance as your thesis. To defend the integrity of your thesis, you must therefore defend the validity of your premises. As a learned man, you know this so why are you engaging in this sort of disgingenous rhetoric?

            From my perspective, neither you nor Gelber has demonstrated that resentment against the British is unfounded “given the facts” or because they are based on misunderstandings or misinterpretations. The limited point that Gelber made was that there are many people in the world who think the Opium War was only about opium. This is a criticism of the oversimplification of popularized “common knowledge”. That’s fine, but it does not in any way prove that resentment against the British is unfounded on the facts. Why? Because the facts amply justify resentment against the British for the wrongs they are responsible for. The “facts” show that the Opium War was not just about opium, but they do not show that resentment is unfounded. This is the strange leap of logic in your thesis.

            Especially, I dispute any notion that ‘imperialism’ was inherently and deliberately harmful to the Chinese best interests in the 19th and 20th centuries, on the whole, specifically in Hong Kong, in spite of Britain’s economic interest in China.

            “Imperialsim” inherently puts the imperialist’s interests above that of the victim’s interests. Imperialism also inherently is about you thinking you know what’s best for others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

            Seeking trade and diplomacy on equal terms are very different from the territorialism that is implicate in your concept of the ‘wrongful taking’ of places.

            There’s a difference between seeking trade and diplomacy on equal terms and forcing others to trade on allegedly equal terms until at gun point you demand most favored nation status, extraterritoriality, and a whole host of others inequalities. Stop whitewashing.

            You identify that I have grievances with China. This is refuted.

            Your refutation is refuted by your own comments where you digress and end up ranting about something or another you find objectionable with China. For example

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2013/stories/radical-hong-kong-protesters-trespass-onto-pla-headquarters.html#comment-1207493961

            It is you who appear to have a grievance with aspects of imperialism.

            Yes, and I reckon a good deal of people in the world. You’re coming across as finding grievances with aspects of imperialism to be inconceivable. Again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

            I fail to see what is wrong with having grievances with aspects of imperialism.

            However, to clarify, I do submit respectfully to those whose comments are anti-British, or who even subscribe to the idea that Hong Kong was ‘wrongfully taken’ relating to Hong Kong that the ex post grievances I am privvy to on this blog, and that are evidenced in your own tone, are by and large fuelled by subjective and nationalistic notions without factual basis and without the benefit of fullness in as regards the facts, or even the desire for that, simply what I will term a nationalistic policy called ‘the resentment’.

            Yes, you’ve already submitted this. The problem is after all of these lengthy comments, you haven’t proven how anyone who has “anti-British” comments or who believes HK was “wrongfully taken” are “by and large fueled by subjective and nationalistic notions without factual basis” or that they don’t “desire” the facts. All you’re doing is essentially saying “anyone who expresses resentment with British imperialism must be Chinese nationalists.” You’re making an accusation, not an argument.

            You also seem to be conflating nationalism with resentment over history. Just because there is Chinese nationalism doesn’t mean all resentment about history is nationalism. They are two individual phenomenon that may overlap but are not necessarily tied together, as you may fallaciously be suggesting. There are tons of people who believe British imperialism AND modern Chinese nationalism is deplorable.

            What you refer to as extremes are not extremes,

            Please go back and quote your own words and tell me if they were an accurate representation of the full spectrum and complexity of British HK rule over HKers.

            but examples of acts of cooperation between Chinese and British interests in Hong Kong and ways in which a colonial system forming a governance basis in Hong Kong provided a means for Chinese voices to be heard rather than stifled. They are the norm rather than the exception and this is echoed in the position taken by many that the UK has been of benefit to Hong Kong society, over the long haul, and benefit that would not or could not have been provided by the Chinese side.

            It is also the norm in China that Chinese rule of Tibet has been of benefit to Tibetan society, over the long haul, and that benefit would not or could not have been provided by the Tibetan side.

            I am repeating myself. Whatever benefits the British believe they have bestowed upon HK does not change whether or not it was wrong to have use national military force to take the island from the Chinese in the first place. It is entirely possible to believe it was wrong to have taken the island AND recognize that there have been benefits to the island from the taking. You want to use one to absolve resentment for the other. They can coexist.

            Your own straw man, Kai, is your idea that I purport an argument whereby ‘so long as we helped you more than we harmed you then that is ok’ (paraphrase).

            I keep quoting you and explaining why I think that is your argument. Explain to me how I’ve misunderstood you.

            If we take this back to Hong Kong at its formation as a colony and convenient entrepot for trade with China, we are talking about a couple of thousand farmers and fishermen, living alongside several hundred British. I do not see that they were harmed.

            So China can say Japan was not harmed if it takes the Diaoyu Islands because there are no Japanese inhabitants on the islands? Or if there were just a few thousand?

            You seem to be selectively ignoring modern notions of sovereignty as recognized by the British themselves.

            The benefits upon new immigrants from China mainland were conferred instantly in that they could find work, they could become informal subjects of the Empire and they would stand to gain from the trade opportunities.

            And the disadvantages? If one aspect of life is better in the United States than in China for a Chinese immigrant, does that justify all other grievances they experience?

            The Chinese accepted further territorial cessation with very little by way of resistance, and they were perfectly able to take a seat at the negotiating table.

            Wow.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_treaty

            This did not take place due to British territorial ambitiousness, indeed such was opposed by Britain, in parliament and by action, including indeed the colonial position by those on our island at the time.

            So, what, the Chinese foisted the land upon the British against their wishes? You’ve got to be joking.

            However, Britain did need to protect the interests of the colony and by proxy the Chinese of Hong Kong, thus acting in their better interests.

            Chinese in HK interests and benefit at times overlapped with British interests and benefit. This doesn’t mean the British acted in the interests of the Chinese in HK, nor does it change whether or not HK was “wrongfully taken” in the first place. Stop conflating the two.

            Thus a degree of expansion beyond the permanent cessation of the island became a neccessity to prevent outsider capricious intents, non-UK and non-Chinese. Thus this was not a way to humiliate China – this is absolutely key to understand in healing ‘the resentment’. Being ‘forced to cede’ is another source of resentment and perceived ‘humiliation’.

            So you’re saying the British took more land away from China in the interests of the Chinese in HK?

            Next, do you have to intend to humiliate someone in order for someone to feel humiliated?

            Furthermore, your understanding of why someone feels humiliated is “absolutely key” in healing any resentment from that someone.

            I am arguing, in your view fallaciously and arrogantly, that there was little by way of wrongdoing in these matters. Or perhaps you think a flat denial of wrongdoing is a failure to properly reflect and show remorse for perceived harms done. What I am saying is that Britain’s part in treaties, which benefitted Britain’s position, yes, also served to protect China from outside forces which had their own ambitions that were far less savoury than Britain’s desire for economic and diplomatic openness and fair and reasonable treatment, respectively.

            What you’re saying here is different from what you were saying before, but I’ll run with it. You’re now arguing that Britain’s imperialism and unequal treaties were imposed on China “to protect China from outside forces” that were “far less savory than Britain”, am I right?

            So Britain selflessly foisted upon China losses and violations of its sovereignty because it saw itself as the lesser of evils?

            So Britain’s desire for economic and diplomatic openness and fair and reasonable treatment should trump China’s desire to administer trade in its own territory as it sees fit? Should my desire for economic and diplomatic openness and fair and reasonable treatment mean I should point a gun to a girl’s head and force her to give me head because I think someone else might force her to give him anal?

            To put it kindly, I do not follow your logic.

            Making the supply of opium to meet the demand of addicts a focal point is a sleight of misdirection to support ‘the resentment’ policy as well.

            I’m not making it a focal point. I’m saying it is a relevant point in the impetus that led to the “Opium War” and British imperialist history. In contrast, you are trying to exclude it because it makes your position even less persuasive.

            they did not need to come to Hong Kong and would not have had there not been at least better prospects for them there as a result of the cessation and British rule there. To then blame and resent British arrogance seems to be to say that beggars can’t be choosers.

            The British did not need to do trade with the Chinese and would not have had there not been at least better prospects for them there as a result of the massive potential market in China. To then blame and resent Chinese sovereignty (making decisions for itself about what goes on in its territoriy) makes me want to say beggars can’t be choosers.

            British imperialism was that beggars CAN be choosers if they have guns and can beat their obstacles into submission without regard or respect for sovereignty. Power from the barrel of a gun. Mao learned from that.

            Do you realize you are selectively applying principles when it benefits you and ignoring them when it doesn’t? A good argument or “thesis” has internal consistency.

            What I am saying, is that local Chinese were not beggars, and secondly, they had opportunities to oppose the the ruling force at the time, not at first, that is sure, but gradually, in a democratic manner.

            You’re overstating things but let’s stick to the subject and recognize that this is irrelevant to whether or not HK was “wrongfully taken” and whether or not anyone can resent the British for its imperialism.

            The basis, I am presuming for the ‘harm’ you seem to purportedly argue are justifications for ‘the resentment’ are threefold: 1) the territorial expansion by British interests; 2) the imperial nature of the colonies and 3) the opium trade. I hope I’ve begun to address the first 2.

            No, what I’m saying is quite simple:

            1) HK was “wrongfully taken” from China because it was done so through force and the continued threat of force.

            2) People have cause to resent British imperialism because it involved the violation and disrespect of Chinese sovereignty.

            You have expressed disagreement to but not really addressed, much less presented a compelling refutation of, either position of mine.

            Under your thesis, it appears that what would have been the ‘right thing to do’ would have been to allow other forces to have taken over, forces with an openly capricious (against China) nature at a time of competition to trade with China.

            The “right” thing to do is subjective. Under British imperialism, violating other people’s sovereignty for British interests WAS considered “the right thing to do” at least by those who perpetuated British imperialism. It was NOT the “right” thing to do from the Chinese perspective.

            Today, mainstream opinion is that imperialism is “wrong”. That’s why even descendents of imperialists can resent past imperialism.

            Not a single thing I have said has ever suggested that under my “thesis”, the right thing to do would be for the British to “allow other forces to have taken over”.

            Where the hell did you get the idea that I think that? Are you sure you’re not setting up a straw man?

            If the British feared resentment from the Chinese, the right thing to do for them would have been to respect Chinese sovereignty and not violate it. What other nations may do is on them, not the British. The British would therefore be blameless and wouldn’t suffer the same resentment it got for what they actually chose to do.

            There’s a girl. Maybe I see some other lecherous fuckers leering at her and I suspect they’re going to rape her in the ass. Fearing their competition, I instead force her to blow me. Is she supposed to thank me for forcing her to blow me because I thought those other dudes were going to ass rape her? Is she not supposed to resent me?

            Or perhaps you simply agree with the biased notion that all foreigners should be tarred with the same arrogant, evil, imperialist brush, undoubtedly the most fallacious of all arguments

            You’re putting words in my mouth. Please quote where I have said anything to suggest this. Again, straw man.

            You can play a ‘straw man’ card again on that,

            LoL, you anticipated it. Have you considered just not making straw me in the first place? It would make our discussion more productive. Instead, you’re needlessly antagonizing me by disrespecting my comments and putting words in my mouth.

            but actually these are the voices you appear to support whenever you take the position that imperialism was wrong in all of its aspects when taken from the initial standpoint that China was ‘unfairly treatied’ (sic), coerced and so on, which is a mainstream assumption and again one I’d like to see challenged.

            It only appears that way to you because you are dishonestly conflating things. Nowhere do I express any support for any voices that argue the above positions you projected onto me.

            I’m curious as to why you’re saying I take the position that “imperialism was wrong in all of its aspects” when I’m clearly explaining how victims of imperialism have cause to resent the imperialists. You’re perverting my position.

            Not sure why you (sic)’d there because I don’t recall writing “treatied”. I could be mistaken but off the top of my head, I can’t think of why I’d make “unequal treaty” into a verb. Or did I meant to type treaties but because the “s” key and the “d” key are right next to each other that I had a typo? Sorry about that. Hope all my other properly typed “unequal treaties” helped you figure out what I meant.

            If you want to challenge mainstream opinion, by all means. I just don’t think you’re doing a good job of it. You seem to have a specific notion of mainstream opinion that you are then projecting onto me while ignoring my actual position when arguing with me. I’m getting tired of being confused for a straw man.

            The assumption is Chinese weakness, inability to negotiate and lack of power.

            Oh, so you’re saying the unqueal treaties were a result of Chinese strength, incredibly negotiating positions, and abundance of power? This opposing hyperbole is meant to ask you what exactly you’re trying to challenge here. How is the belief that the Chinese were weak, unable to negotiate, and lacked power relative to the British in that situation an assumption? A mistaken assumption? Isn’t this a case of the results speaking for themselves?

            However, Britain failed in most of its economic and diplomatic ambitions with regard to China.

            Er, how does that change that the Chinese lost in that specific instance? How does this change that HK was wrongfully taken and that people have cause to resent British imperialism?

            Again, I am way out of time and I challenge you again, if you are the scholar you seem to be, to publish academically, rather than on a one-sided commercial venture blog comment system, and then we can take the matter with a view to properly influencing policymakers, rather than netizens.

            What makes you think I’m interested in influencing, properly or not, policymakers rather than netizens? I’m clearly content to shoot the shit on this site, what makes you think I’m not?

            It is up to you to grasp this as an opportunity for cooperation or to criticize vainly without the benefit of a fuller and freer, impartial and peer-reviewed way to debate this.

            LoL.

            As for the Opium trade, I question the legality argument. That the centre has ‘outlawed’ it, does not mean that local officialdom does not sanction it from a position of authority and representation, or that local economy did not benefit from it for the benefit of their own bequest.

            So Manchester officials can say fuck you to the central government’s authority and governance if it feels like sanctioning public gang-rape from their position of authority and representation, and some locals want it.

            So if the NYC mayor is cool with me smuggling cocaine through its ports, I can safely ignore US federal law?

            To call on an international law argument and apply it in hindsight is a way to substantiate the argument ex-post and thereby bolster the nationalistic/anti-British sentiment position,

            How is recognition of sovereignty an “international law argument” that did not already exist back then? Gelber’s own citations acknowledged sovereignty even as they overrode it by placing primacy on Briitsh self-interest.

            It would be a double standard to apply the legal argument upon Britain without applying it to the Chinese of Guangdong on an equal basis.

            You’re accusing hypocrisy when it isn’t present. If the Chinese of Guangdong disrespected and violated the sovereignty of other nations, they are blameworthy too. Again, two wrongs don’t make a right.

            Thus any ‘trade guilt’ – must be borne by both Guangdongese and British.

            So you’re basically saying “they did it too!”

            It has to be understood that in Britain, Opium was not morally hazardous as a legal substance. It was the Chinese that liked to smoke it giving rise to an economy for it.

            So drug pushers and dealers are blameless because there can be blame placed on the users? I thought we’ve evolved to a point where we recognize both parties are responsible for their own actions.

            The responsibility lies squarely with the user and his demands in at least as much, if not more with the supplier when the supplier is itself opposed to illegal trade of opium which was harmful the the East India monopoly in addition to parliamentary sympathy towards the Chinese case for embargo.

            So you’re saying “they’re wrong too!”

            The British who engaged in the illegal opium trade were not opposed to the illegal opium trade. No one is denying that there was parliamentary sympathy for the Chinese. It coexisted with parliamentary support for imperialist policies that violated Chinese sovereignty and Chinese interests. Stop conflating.

            I will further add that the British legal system was different to the Chinese legal system at the time.

            Yes, it was, yet earlier you echoed rationalizations for British imperialism on the basis that Britain had a right to be treated a certain way by the Chinese, a right to treatment that they were justified in using national military force to obtain.

            However, there are elements of the Chinese system at the time that are abhorrent from a human rights perspective

            Unlike the concept of sovereignty, your appeal to human rights here is more befitting of your earlier complaint:

            To call on an international law argument and apply it in hindsight is a way to substantiate the argument ex-post

            There are elements of the British system at the time that are abhorrent from a human rights perspective. This statement is also true. Does it change the fact that HK was “wrongfully taken”? No. Does it change the fact that people have cause to resent British imperialism? No.

          • samuk1000

            OK, thanks Kai for your words and imagery there. I’m not going to argue over all of your points anymore because you’ve truly descended into some kind of I don’t know what with your guns, anal rape analogies and so forth. Have fun with that shit. I guess this forum is more fitting to you than my encouragement to you for your logical and methodological critiques. I don’t need to go over your posts and cite bits here and there. You seem like an angry man these days, I was trying to be helpful and make some valid points, although you try to read them as justifications for wrongdoing assumptions/resentments. I feel like you just want to laud your righteousness over me. If you don’t understand that had not Britain taken Hong Kong and beyond, that there were far more capricious interests that would have harmed China, then I’m very sorry and encourage you to do more reading, and not only wikis, which is not peer reviewed, and therefore, seldom cited above undergraduate degree level.

          • samuk1000

            Kai, I also think that both of us are confused between Imperialism and Colonialism and that colonialism evidently describes Hong Kong far better than Imp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism#Colonialism_vs._Imperialism

          • samuk1000

            Kai I did put myself in the shoes and I did feel the resentment and so on, don’t worry. And I only suggest the ”ivory tower’ because I think it is a good debate and you could argue your side convincingly, and why not? Because of your comfort zone basically being contributing here and using wikis to justify mainstream arguments – and comparing like-for-like a rigorous peer-review process to wiki-editing by different experts and volunteers which cannot be compared side-by-side. I don’t have a series of arguments in the conventional sense, because I’m not a scholar in Chinese history, imperialism, colonialism or whatever. What I do find objectionable, and humiliating, is having insults thrown in a forum that appear to be based in ignorance and prejudice, not by you necessarily, although I do object to the idea of ‘wrongful’ in your lexicon on the matter of the UK and Hong Kong. It is almost as though you share the ignorance of the Emperor at the time with regards to China’s place in the world at the time with regard to development, capability and expectation of consequences. Seeming an angry man is not an ad hominem parting insult, it is an observation to your ‘humorous’ sex/porn/KTV/guns/anal-rape etc references. That’s *fucking* angry language, mon! Why do you get incredibly defensive about practically every point I make, as if your position has to be right. Some injustices perceived by the Chinese are either imagined terrible injustices or could be righted with more knowledge. There’s still the choice to resent, but why not look for the good? Isn’t that what Chinese TV does most of the time. Maybe it is because this is a blog that focuses on ‘the bad’ news – a bit like ogrish/liveleak. Who knows? I don’t care.

          • Kai

            The analogies are to help illustrate the underlying principles and rationalizations involved. That the analogies involve guns and rape is just for added color, to amuse anyone who is actually following our discussion because I figure they’re smart enough to separate hyperbole from the point being made.

            I’m amused by you calling me “an angry man” for simply articulating my disagreement with your arguments.. It sounds like an ad hominem parting shot.

            I’m sure you believe you were trying to make some valid points. I’m even sure you think you’re trying to be “helpful”, as if you’re lifting the wool off yet another Chinese person you assume to be a Chinese nationalist. I just wish you’d take a step back, put yourself in another person’s shoes, and realize that some of the remarks you’ve made are objectionable and that maybe–just maybe–your arguments aren’t coming across as “valid points” to another.

            You’re now coming across as resentful that I don’t see your arguments the way you see them.

            I don’t think I’m “trying” to read your comments as justifications for wrongdoing/resentments. I feel that’s exactly what they are and others can judge for themselves. I’d quote you to prove my point but I’ve already done that and I’d just be repeating myself.

            I’m curious as to why you think I’m lauding my “righteousness” over you. For you to feel that, you must on some level feel that I am actually “right” (with God or otherwise) and you resent me for it. What is actually “righteous” about my position anyway?

            I don’t think it’s fair for you to resent me for responding to your disagreement and arguments with me. Would you rather I have just ignored you? I didn’t force you into this conversation. I took the time to read everything you wrote and respond carefully, acknowledging points where there is consensus and explaining points where we disagree. I’ve tried to be fair to you and to your arguments. Ad hominem attacks now just seem immature.

            I understand you think there were far more capricious interests that would have harmed China. What I question is how that justifies Britain taking Hong Kong, how that changes Britain’s taking of Hong Kong from “wrongfully” to “rightfully”, and how that should stop Chinese people from resenting British imperialism. I do not see how it does and you have not persuaded me of how it does even when you are advancing that as an argument for your disagreement with my characterization that Hong Kong was “wrongfully taken”.

            Technically, Wikipedia is peer-reviewed, just not in the traditional academic sense. The very model of a wiki is based on crowd-sourcing and peer-review. However, I understand the point you are trying to make and it is one I consider very very thin. The fact remains that what I’ve cited from Wikipedia has more citations of academically peer-reviewed sources than your 8-page Gelber essay. I cite them because I feel they address your dismissal of essential, relevant issues of imperialism and sovereignty, not to mention history. I took the time to read your Gelber essay, but have you returned the courtesy of taking seriously the additional information I’ve provided you to help articulate my disagreements with your arguments?

            I have been earnest in my discussion with you. I have not pawned off your responses with excuses about how this forum does not befit me or whatever. I have not copped an attitude of ivory tower arrogance believing a conversation on the comments section of a website should be elevated to the realm of academic papers and journals for other academics to review. I don’t discuss to earn the respect or attention of academics. If I thought so highly of my scholarship, I’d be a professional academic doing just that. Instead, I’m just a guy who feels he knows enough or can learn enough to articulate and defend a position chatting with other people on a website of shared interest. I’m also on Quora, maybe you’d like to articulate your position and solicit responses from me there?

  • KamikaziPilot

    Of course you’d rather be a “happy slave”, you’re Chinese. Just like you’d rather be a “house negro” than a “field negro”. Suit yourself.

  • Irvin

    Are they now? Were they before?

  • Irvin

    Why? because they have no fucking army.

  • carlstar

    You can’t lump Canada and New Zealand in with the scale of genocide of Australia and the USA. That is called being ignorant to the facts. Kind of like the mainlanders are in China over HongKong issues

    • ScottLoar

      “That is called being ignorant to the facts.”

      You invited this. Eight out of ten natives to North America died from transmitted diseases to which they had no immunity; e.g. the Mandan (uh, do you have any idea who they were?) were almost completely wiped out by smallpox and had welcomed the whites as allies against their tribal enemies. Deaths from epidemics reached the highest mortality rates among those natives living in large communities, like the Navajo, the Mandan, and the Northwest Coast Indians; the Mississippian cultures were extant and thriving during LaSalle’s exploration, yet 20 years later nothing remained but ruins, the results of transmitted diseases from the Old World.

      Indians were never slow to enlist with the US Army or ally themselves to the whites whenever possible; the Apache actively sought alliance with the Texans against their hereditary enemies the Mexicans and Commanche, the Crow gladly scouted against the Sioux (as did the Sioux themselves against their own brethren), and.the Iroquois played the French and English military and colonists for decades, allying themselves to one or another whenever they found it profitable.

      Genocide? The mounted horsemen of the plains could outride and outshoot settlers, the cavalry and the Texas rangers.until the advent of the Walker Colt pistol which allowed a mounted man repeated fire from the saddle, an impossibility with muskets against composite bows.. Even then, the territory of the Commanche continued to expand against whites until 1870’s, and the Blackfeet effectively stopped white trade in the Northern Rockies for over 50 years. The notion of ragtag bands of impotent Indians being harassed and killed by superior white technology doesn’t fit the facts. Plainsmen and the military well understood that the plains tribes would not be broken until their pony herds were killed off denying the tribes mobility and the buffalo were destroyed. It was the combination of Qing bannermen and Czarist armies in the lat 1700’s that finally broke the mounted tribes in Northwest Asia that had preyed upon China for millennia. I doubt you know any of this; you surely don’t show any knowledge of it by your comment. Rather than rely on popular hearsay and Hollywood movies I suggest you look to historiography before showing your “ignorance to the facts.”

      “Genocide”, a word loosely and casually used by too many: Look to the Armenian genocide by the Turks in the early 20th century, or to Genghis Khan’s obliteration of the XiXia kingdom to gain an appreciation of the term, or better yet look to who coined the word and the struggle it took to have the very notion of genocide accepted as a crime.
      .

      • carlstar

        And i accept it.
        The Americans took the land from the natives and slaughtered them as the Natives sided with the British. It was the perfect excuse to take what was once theirs. Disease aside and the lovely tales of how they may or may not have contracted those diseases.
        The Christian fundamentalists also hated and feared nature as it was where the evil spirits dwelled, so destroying these homelands, that a group had been on for centuries would be called genocide. Decimation. Destruction. Ruin. Imagine the fact they might want to fight back to. How terrible of these people.
        To not accept that a group of people, that now have little rights in their own land is not genocide is to tell me that slavery was actually good for Africans because now they have a president in the US

        • ScottLoar

          “Lovely tales…”

          Begin your elementary education with Plagues and Peoples by William Hardy McNeill, published in 1976 which has at least been open to you most of your life. As to your silly analogy (you know the word?) with slavery… well, it’s just silly.

          Then progress to an understanding of Native American cultures, most based on status gained through warfare and the accompanying homicide rates as evidenced by the skeletal remains even among settled cultures like the Mississippian. Tribal warfare was total – man, woman and child alike were gleefully slaughtered by Indians, sparing only those young needed to replenish the tribe’s numbers; look to the example of the Iroquois extermination of the Huron, the extermination of all within their expanding territory by the Commanche except their Kiowa allies, but I suspect not one jot of this will register so strong is your prejudice.

          • carlstar

            OK then Scott. I see you are proud of, i guess your early American history. The native American tribes, all hundreds of them, are perfectly fine and living how they want to in their land, their individual countries.

          • ScottLoar

            Your cheap sarcasm is childish.

            The collision of Stone Age culture with modernity is a train wreck that has destroyed most tribes’ identities as a distinctive tribe; even the Navajo who were among the most successful in maintaining their culture on hereditary lands are now riven by drugs, drink, crime, and decay. The tribes cannot integrate their cultures and left to their own devices on reservations turn to casinos (heavily infiltrated by professional gangsters) for wealth or traditional livelihoods like salmon fishing that cannot sustain their peoples or adapt to changing circumstances. But, perhaps the tribal authorities would be interested in your thoughts on the subject? No?

          • carlstar

            Fanatical. Someone that does not know when to stop or cannot let go of something. —I can add titles too.

            So in conclusion. You believe that the native people have it OK in the US on their reservations. On the same par as those in Canada, as that is something I mentioned to not lump together with. Who needs to give a certain group of people their own parliament anyway. They deserve only casinos on the reservations that they are allowed to live in.

          • ScottLoar

            You read with no understanding yet still think you’re qualified to make a conclusion. You can’t express yourself clearly in writing (mostly because you haven’t thought through the subject) so resort to cliches and simple sarcasm. Even among the frat boys posting here you are well below average.

            Remember, you invited this with “being ignorant to the facts”, and now show you don’t know what you’re talking about and, worse, can’t understand what is being written to you. Do yourself and others a big favor: Opine less, read more. In your case, read with understanding.

          • carlstar

            Arrogant. A title that sums up one who believes they are so right that they fail to see anything else.

            Well your thoughts are interesting but i see only thoughts that you are fanatical about once more. I take on the ideas you are talking about to justify the genocide of a people and culture but I do find it rather villainess and short sighted to begin to believe in this kind of argument. Sure disease is a great shame and a killer and who would have ever thought that it could be so devastating to those that have no immunity to all of them. Of course to think that would be to deny human history of colonization and mass deaths due to great pestilences.

            Thanks for reminding me in your oh so self righteous way while you are at it too. Do you really consider yourself to be a great linguist? A words smith? A great thinker? You have stated only facts that you want to say because you seem to deny the opposite in what has now become in a rather fervent way. The fact that you actually think the treatment of native people between, for example, Canada and the US is on a par is an indictment on your actual sense of decency and please understand, it is the idea of putting these four nations into the same basket that I believed to be wrong. I used the slave argument to help illustrate for you that just because something can come out of it does not mean it is good. I could have used similar references from other parts of the world but seems you are justifying the actions of a nation towards the original people and how they got so much help from the new people, it seemed prudent to keep it in the confines of the borders of the USA.

            Here is a situation that is very similar to then and what happens now. Is it fair to you?
            A land is home to a group of people. These people live how they wish. Another group of people, culture, belief has now decided that they are in charge. What to do? Flood the place with the new people, cultures and beliefs. Make the originals move and even outlaw some of what they do.

        • Amused

          While slavery certainly sucked for the ones who endured it, it hasn’t exactly panned out in a bad way for their descendents bud… Or one might add for western culture in general. They certainly weren’t going to get to the US in their canoes, and the mingling of African culture with European culture is the foundation to EVERY kind of music that modern people enjoy today…

          • carlstar

            and that only became mainstream because blacks had to go to Europe to get recognition. Hence modern music was born out of England as they accepted and embarrassed the black musicians from the US.
            Racism. My name is the USA

  • carlstar

    Adding an American comic book as an example for Britain is interesting. Not sure how that explains anything.

    Boudicca was effectively what we would call a Queen or princess and was to rule prior to the Romans. Average woman she was not. In Rome woman did have power, similar to the way woman have had power in many places over the millenniums as they were mothers, daughters and sisters to powerful men. Obviously not great in most places of the world.

    Religion could set apart the British Empire and the Chinese Empire but in the other way, the fact that religion lost its power over Britain. The British Empire was set apart due to it ability to create trade routes and control them. The red coats were a brutal killing machine that had the power to maintain order. It also wasn’t until the 1600s that the Empire became more than a paddy field or two in Ireland and after the restoration and the rule of the Scottish Kings in the new Britain.

    The British Empire had a monarchy but the fact that it also had a controlling and functioning parliament was more important. By the time of the Empire, the government was calling most of the shots and absolute rule had started to end with the beginning of the Magna Carta signed by King John in the 1200s.

  • Jobjed

    Your mistake is thinking of Hong Kongers as not being Chinese. China is not a sovereign state, it’s a cultural entity. The sovereign states are called PRC and ROC. Hong Kong is an inherent part of China, whether or not HK wishes to being part of the PRC is irrelevant. Hong Kongers are Chinese and always will be; they might not be citizens of the PRC but they are Chinese. Do not confuse the cultural entity of China with the political entity of the PRC; one is eternal and the other is temporary.

  • Kai

    Yeah, many of the hotels in HK are quite small, though that has something to do with land space issues (which also affects housing prices in general).

    Anecdotally, yeah, I’ve also found a lot of HKers to be cold and rude in service businesses. I would expect that for mainland China but not HK, which is why it has always struck me as a bit surprising. I’ve found TW and JP to be consistently friendly in service industries, but not HK. In HK, a lot of people working in the service industry just come across as if they can’t be bothered and you’re wasting their time or otherwise being a nuissance. It’s jarring against your expectations of a developed first-world society.

    Yeah, unfortunately, a lot of Asians are pretty damn prejudiced against darker skin tones. I’m wondering if the difference in treatment you’ve experienced has anything to do with you possibly still being a novelty guest in the mainland but a “familiarity breeds contempt” guest in HK. Are you “black” or “brown”? I know there’s some prejudice against “brown” Indians and SEAs in HK because they’re meaningful minorities there with a lot of stereotypes built up over the years, but blacks aren’t a significant resident minority. I ask because of your screen name. If you’re black, then its not even a “familiarity breeds contempt” sort of thing but just being prejudiced (if you feel they’re treating you differently than they treat locals/whites, and not just being the stereotypical “impatient” HKer in general). Sucks.

  • YourSupremeCommander

    I have a better idea, rid their Chinese citizenships and load them all onto a junk boat and tell them to fuck off. (Think 70’s Vietnamnese)

  • moeimoei

    rebelling is treason which is punishable by death in countries with capital punishment…peacefully protesting and voicing your opinion, though your opinions can be provocative and repulsive, is what is respected by democracy….

    • samuk1000

      It is so easy to see who has been brainwashed from an early age in this thread, and so sad to see lives in humanity wasted from the chronic destructiveness of totalitarianism on the human psyche. Maybe one day there will be a procedure to turn them back into real human beings, instead of human doings, doing the will of ‘Dear Leader’ basically – not unlike the North Koreans at all, just dressed up in a fancy packaging.

      • moeimoei

        “It is so easy to see who has been brainwashed from an early age in this thread, and so sad to see lives in humanity wasted from the chronic destructiveness of totalitarianism on the human psyche.”
        …and what makes you the objective judge to evaluate other people’s opinions? It is easy to see here that he, who makes any kind of arrogant judgments on the opinions of other fellow human beings and belittles them is in fact more sad and perhaps more ignorant and isolated/in-ward looking of them all…
        Give me a break…got a taste of democracy, but not enough time to learn the real relationship between democracy and the rule of law is…really just BS dressed up in a fancier packaging…

        • samuk1000

          On one hand, I feel humbled, sublime, it is a pleasure to receive your critique, please to receive it and more, so good. On the other hand, it is apathetic to say BS dressed up in fancier packaging. We should just be peaceful to one another, not aggression, solve the problems gently together, but I feel always Chinese opposing the very deeply held values which are for the happiness and good of all. Nothing is perfect. Definitely western rule of law not perfect. For me, I FEEL more freedom in China, but I can still argue against the HIDDEN CHINA – that which is opposed to everything in which my deepest part believes, including full sanctity of all human life, from the zygote (fusion of two sex cells) and SANCTITY through life – respect for a person’s inalienable right to LIFE and FULL LIFE. I don’t see that in anything about China. I cannot see it. Just barely, underneath the surface, but it is never PUBLICLY EDIFIED, or when it is, it is like hearing a joker telling lies. So I am ashamed now. Please accept my respect to you, you are no longer brainwashed, just opinions. You are more free.

          • moeimoei

            OMG…haha…I pray to the lord that you don’t talk like this to every person you meet…so long…

          • samuk1000

            So long as you pray to the Lord, MoeiMoei, that’s all that matters. Chinese dignity could be a glorious things.

          • moeimoei

            …you sure do sound like a robot…or in your words, a brainwashed zombie…and w/e is Chinese dignity? how about human dignity, but of course people like yourself would never ever understand that…

          • samuk1000

            Indeed, WHAT IS CHINESE DIGNITY, good question. Clue: You have to go to Singapore, Hong Kong or Taiwan to find it embedded. The point is that humans do have dignity, and PRC seems yet to have discovered that. Actually, that is too harsh – is only just beginning to re-discover that… since1946. Doesn’t this blog seem to evidence and the comments here advocate that?

            but of course people like yourself would never ever understand that – why flame me when I stand for Chinese dignity – as human dignity. And I did not use the word zombie – however, good word to use with reference to those brought up under totalitarian states, like PRC – at least as regards a great deal of the unconscious neurology that is programmed in by the state.

          • moeimoei

            Geez, sorry buddy, I didn’t mean to hurt your sensitive feelings…from your zombie like words, I didn’t know you actually had any human feelings. Anyways, if my words flamed you, my apologies, I thought, you, coming from, I guess, a more free, non totalitarian place would be more tolerant to different opinions…but I guess not…b/c apparently you got flamed…
            You are right, people like myself can never ever understand people like yourself…you think mainlanders are programmed by the state through the PRC, same thing could be said about you, just different programming language…you dig? probably not…
            …and I do apologize on behalf of everyone on this blog who did not voice their opinion in adherence to your ideologies…they are in fact too brainwashed to be enlightened like you….

          • samuk1000

            You did flame deliberately read your post. Are you offended by the notion that China is totalitarian? Do you think it means we don’t like China or Chinese? Are you worried we want to break apart China? Are you paranoid that the outside world want to do to China against China’s will what it does not want to be done? Do you fail to see that where China sees enemies, the ‘enemies’ often see Chinese as their brothers and sisters? Were it not for Chinese contempt due, yes, due to programming and a severe reduction (note, I am not saying the ability is not there) in the ability to properly question what is put before them as truth, due to the bombardment of falsehoods propagated by the state machine? Maybe because it makes you FEEL good (it is designed to do that by the way and it does so effectively), you want to defend it, or, you get defensive about it it. That’s just fine. We (humans, not commies) understand! And support you as our Chinese brothers and sisters, wanting well for you.

          • moeimoei

            awww man, looks like I did flame you pretty good…sorry, really, I am, b/c I didn’t know I was capable since the last time I tried to flame my fireplace, it was an epic fail…

            anyways, as a comrade, I’d tell you to calm down with a nice cup of tea and some scones, in the meantime, I hope you have a smart phone that’d tell you where the nearest mental institution is located…. LOL…

          • samuk1000

            Don’t apologise to me again, I don’t need your apology. I am PR Chinese, I never learned to forgive, instead I will hold a nasty resentment and grudge against you. I’m not smart that way, you can see that from all the posts on this blog.

          • moeimoei

            okay…meh, you are probably one of those people who were mentally scarred by the PRC…or w/e other government you affiliated with…plz use your smart phone wisely…

  • Irvin

    Your idealistic comments support that of a normative perspective, but from a positive perspective HK still can’t do shit. It’s not about right and wrong, it’s about the facts.

    Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you only works if you got the bigger stick and HK don’t even have a stick.

    • samuk1000

      Positive in what sense? Counting the number of soldiers that are Chinese/Hong Kongese? One thing is for absolutely certain, there are a lot more HONG KONGESE soldiers in the British army itself and always have been, than there have ever been Chinese or nationalized British who were once Chinese PRC nationals. That’s a positivist fact. Or are you counting the influence of Hong Kong leadership up the chain towards Beijing?

      Hong Kong is already “doing shit”. It remains the most trusted gateway to Asia financially. Shanghai pales in comparison on the ‘trust factor’. Given the foreign equity inflows to Japan and selling out of currency positions and into Japanese business, that places Japan firmly back on the map. If Hong Kong can do the same, from a pure positivist perspective on cash-flows into assets by the developed world liquid asset holders, this could result in annexing of China from Hong Kong again. Politically, it is in the interests of foreign asset holders in Hong Kong stocks and capital that Hong Kong is annexed from China mainland in the long term. Thus they are not subject to the whims of a policy driven economy, driven by Leninists and Marxists with the Marxist Capitalist vision – in other words, the capitalist vision which is the most damaging of all. Positivism doesn’t work with Chinese military numbers. The experience and training of Chinese soldiers are no match to that of the US, or the UK, for example. All you have to do is take a walk through Tiananmen square as a foreigner and one stare at the soldiers in formation, and they’re literally falling over themselves, not knowing what the hell to do. It’s crazy, but it’s China, it’s cool. China is very worried – and rightly so given the frankly evil war urges and tactics of the very US. My vote remains to cede back Hong Kong to UK under a framework called ‘THE NEW ARRANGEMENT’. At least UK like China and will not fuck China up as the US already is. The problem lies squarely with the Chinese side and the unfounded resentments. You make think I am crazy and it will never happen. However, think very carefully and you will find the policymakers taking that direction would be very wise to do so. China should not have this kind of negative feeling around territorial disputes. For the UK, Hong Kong is huge and big piece of land – great and amazing. For China it is a little bit of shit coming out of the arse. If perspectives change, we can all make this happen and in a way where AT LEAST ONE PERSON IS BETTER OFF and/or AT LEAST ONE MORE PERSON IS HAPPIER, it is a winning proposal.

  • moeimoei

    LOL, after 150 years of colonialism, you’d think HKers would’ve learned the art of politeness from the British…but I guess it was not enough time…that’s why they are protesting for the return of the British…totally understandable….

  • dontworryaboutit

    I was really looking forward to them getting tazed…

  • Jin Park

    MODERATOR please this post

    • mr.wiener

      This is one person’s opinion, albeit a rather uncharitable one from an over-opinionated git. If you can refute his arguments [and I personally believe there is ample opportunity to do that] then do so. I can only moderate people for being needlessly abusive, harassing other people, posting pornographic images or spamming.
      Please bear in mind, the moderator is NOT your bitch.

      • Jin Park

        saying ghandi is peverted a(((*** hole is a AGGRESIVE RACIST COMMENT

        • mr.wiener

          Racist comments are not censored [within reason] as we can all marvel at their idiocy or ,as is often the case, it is a matter of differing opinion.
          Now please grow a pair and tell him why you think Gandhi was not a racist pervert.

          • masonman

            I just want to say you are exactly how ALL MODS on EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE should be

          • mr.wiener

            I have an annual moment of awesomeness at the start of each year. The rest of the time I just clean the toilets.

        • Brad pitt

          “you imperlist british scumbug, do you think every mainlander want go to britian????? you are a racist SOB that ought to be punished by your incompetent government for a sloppy education. this is why britain despised self-righteous Anglophiles such as yourself. dogmatic brit should stay out of politics, have you taken your medicine or do you need to check yourself in the psychiatric ward of a hospital?”
          Are you really complaining abour racism?

          • Jin Park

            an eye for an eye

          • samuk1000

            Just stop slating British Imperialism – there is too much good about us. Anger is very YIN and bad for the liver. You should know that if you are a Chinese. And I, a British, and empire citizen, total unashamed neo-colonialst and Sinophile, shouldn’t have to tell that to you my dear coolie friend, Now row my boat to shore and pour me some green tea. Our future awaits us, and soon, I shall make you compradore – then we shall leave a legacy of the true marital sucess between Britain and China together for our families and harmony shall prevail. Good fortune in all our affairs.

        • samuk1000

          quite funny though, has to be said. Gandhi would laugh at it I am sure.

  • mei mei

    haiz!!!

  • mei mei

    to the world, they’re still chinese. this is why people look down in chineses because you dont respect yourself either

    • Irvin

      That’s what I’ve been saying.

    • moeimoei

      Fuck, 2 HKers got arrested and convicted for human trafficking in Canada, who do the white blame for social problems???? Chinese! at the end of the day, it’s still the Chinese people’s face they are losing….

      • markus peg

        I think in a strange way, you are correct. I cannot speak for everyone. but, i feel that most people do count Hong Kong Chinese and mainland Chinese differently but at the same time they are both tagged as Chinese, but when the word Chinese is seen alone people think of mainland China not Hong Kong.

  • Jin Park

    are you indian? this is china smack not korea smack my ethciity got nothing to do with you or anyone else

  • Insomnicide

    Someone in Hong Kong protesting for independence.
    Reaction “Oh hurray they’re innocent oppressed people fighting for their freedom.”
    Someone in Texas, Catalan, Scotland, Quebec, Sicily protesting for independence.
    Reaction “Oh it’s those bloody annoying separatists again. Self-hating national traitors, they ought to be lined up and shot.”

    • socali

      We don’t take too kindly to Communists.

  • moeimoei

    Fuck yea, long live Shanghai :D

  • Edward_Crowley

    Agree about the hotels, but look at the population density. Pay and stay at the peninsula if you want a nice room or even 1000 near enough a night at one of the better budget hotel chains.

  • samuk1000

    No, they weren’t bad, they were positively glorious! That’s the point.

  • samuk1000

    @Kai:

    I appreciate you tried to be balanced. However, if you think Hong Kong was ‘wrongfully taken’ you need to think again,
    and read scholarship such as Gelber’s “Opium War that Wasn’t” instead of
    spouting emotional rhetoric without any factual basis: http://www.howardscott.net/4/H
    Here’s the abstract from this Visiting Scholar to Harvard University, but I suggest to anyone with a brain to read it (and if you are a Chinese ‘anti-imperialist’ – to weep).

    The
    1840-42 Anglo-Chinese war (the so-called “Opium War”) is almost
    universally believed to have been triggered by British imperial rapacity
    and determination to sell more and more opium into China. That belief
    is mistaken. The British went to war because of Chinese military threats
    to defenseless British civilians, including women and children; because
    China refused to negotiate on terms of diplomatic equality and because
    China refused to open more ports than Canton to trade, not just with
    Britain but with everybody. The belief about British “guilt” came later,
    as part of China’s long catalogue of alleged Western “exploitation and
    aggression.”

    • Kai

      Selective reading and citation.

      Anyone with a brain should go ahead and read Gelber’s commentary and apply their own critical thinking faculties in reconciling his arguments with THE REST of the scholarship on the subject because he is hardly the only person who has studied the matter.

      Let’s also be fair and acknowledge that colorful bits like “anyone with a brain” and “to weep” is also “spouting emotional rhetoric”.

      Now, to the meat of the issue:

      Let’s first be clear that any Chinese wrongdoing does not absolve British wrongdoing and vice versa. Each party remains responsible and thus guilty of their own actions.

      HK was “wrongfully taken” because the British forced it as a concession over violence resulting from a history of being unhappy with the Chinese not letting them do what they want in the way they want to with consequences they considered unacceptable on Chinese territory and under Chinese jurisdiction.

      Gelber acknowledges this:

      The real issues for the British therefore became not opium but jurisdiction, sovereignty, expansion of trade and by no means least the safety of British men, women and children threatened, chased away or imprisoned without charge or trial.

      This rhetoric is called conflation, the conflation of imperialist political-economic interests with the social interest of protecting one’s citizens.

      When somewhat embellished reports reached London of English women and children being threatened by Chinese soldiers, there was real fury. For British politics the issue ceased to be opium – about which many people sympathized with China – and became the fate of not just opium traders but innocent men, women and children threatened by armed Chinese soldiers.

      British citizens were knowingly and willfully violating the laws and authorities of the Chinese market for profit. When they suffered consequences, they demanded compensation from London, because that’s what the British authorities promised them.

      It is true that there was another important factor. The British Superintendent at Canton had promised the merchants compensation for the compulsory surrender of opium to Commissioner Lin. That meant that the value of the opium was, in effect, being underwritten by the British government. Since the London cabinet could not decently disavow its own superintendent, Captain Charles Elliot, it had to try and find some two million pounds – which it did not have. Since it was also thought politically impossible to ask the House of Commons to vote funds to pay opium dealers, the solution was to get Chinese monetary compensation for seizures which had, after all, been carried out abruptly, without charge or trial of any kind. Military pressure – perhaps some kind of blockade? – would be useful.

      So the rationalization here was British citizens–again, knowingly and willfully–violating Chinese law, having their opium confiscated, demanding payment anyway, thus germinating the idea of using military force to extract money from a China upholding its own laws.

      Gelber acknowledges this repeatedly in his 8-page essay. For example:

      It was obviously entirely China’s business to decide what should be imported into China, and to supervise and control China’s coasts. But as it was, the actions of the Chinese Commissioner had been “unjust and no better than robbery.”

      So the British see their illegal opium being confiscated under the soverignty of the nation it is smuggling opium into as “unjust” and “robbery”, yet it doesn’t see its own willingness to use national military force to to get money and concessions from the Chinese as “unjust” and “robbery”?

      As we can see from Gelber’s own text, they DID overall on some level see it, but their imperialist interests won out.

      That Chinese authorities mistakenly or wrongly threatened British merchants, and any member of their family knowingly traveling with them to a foreign land where they would be subject to the sovereignty of another government, who were not actually involved in the Opium trade does not make HK “rightfully taken”.

      Gelber did not necessarily write his essay to argue that HK was NOT “wrongfully taken” but to outline how the war was not really about opium per se but about the political, economic, and social issues that ultimately revolved AROUND it. From his own abstract you quoted:

      The 1840-42 Anglo-Chinese war (the so-called “Opium War”) is almost universally believed to have been triggered by British imperial rapacity and determination to sell more and more opium into China. That belief is mistaken. The British went to war because of Chinese military threats to defenseless British civilians, including women and children; because China refused to negotiate on terms of diplomatic equality and because China refused to open more ports than Canton to trade, not just with Britain but with everybody.

      What makes this “imperialist” and why Chinese “anti-imperialists” have zero reason to weep at all from this is because the entire argument is premised on the assumption that China SHOULD HAVE negotiated “on terms of diplomatic equality” and SHOULD HAVE opened “more ports than Conton to trade”.

      This is the placing of one’s own interests and way of doing things, which we call “imperialist”, above the soverignty of another nation. If “trade” with the Chinese was unfair and insulting because the Chinese government insisting on a “lord and vassal” diplomatic relation, the British could’ve simply abstained from it.

      Yet the British, like everyone else, were dazzled by the prospect of a limitless Chinese market, if only they could get there, beyond Canton.

      If you want access to China’s market to make money, then you have to play by their rules. If you don’t want to play by their rules, then no deal. The British ultimately decided they could extend their economic interests, jurisdication, AND soverignty onto and into another country, with military power. Insofar as that is imperialism and imperialism is considered wrong, HK was therefore “wrongfully” taken in the course of this history.

      I do try to be balanced. You should reconsider how you use scholarship that questions historical and modern British remorse for their imperialism by adding quotation marks around “guilt” and “exploitation and aggression” with suggestions that it is unilaterally “alleged” by China.

      The problem with Gelber’s essay is that it easily comes across as being an apologist for British imperialism, that because the Chinese did some things wrong or did things differently from how the British preferred, British actions were therefore justified and excusable to the point where the British should not feel guilty for their part at all. But remember what I said at the onset. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

      If Gelber limited himself to trying to share a more nuanced understanding of everything that was going on, he’d be unassailable. Instead, he frames everything through ethnocentric biases to deny China its victimhood. Oh, he’s afraid of modern Chinese nationalism, a nationalism that draws from China’s past history, and that’s legitimate, but instead of attacking nationalism for its inherent irrationality, he tries to argue that there is no justification for the grievances that fuel that nationalism. If China isn’t a victim, then the British don’t have to feel guilty.

      And this helps him sell books.

      • samuk1000

        Kai I don’t have time to study this in the depth you have – and I acknowledge you for doing so – you could write a paper on it yourself by the seems of it and would be glad to see you do that. It is precisely Gelber’s point though, isn’t it, that the Chinese have apportioned guilt upon the British, whereas the author is arguing that there was no guilt to be apportioned in the first place upon the British. So there is no absolution required in the first place. It is denied that there was wrongdoing as regards the opium trade, from the official position. Gelber’s point seems to be that the Chinese have systematically attempted to apportion guilt where no guilt ought to be felt on the British part. In others words, he argues that there was not British wrongdoing. Is that a correct reading? I would have to skim over the article again. I believe that is what Gelber is arguing, that the actions of the British were not unfair, nor unreasonable, and therefore, there was no British wrongdoing.

        This could be a good debate actually, but I do not believe it is the forum to do so at this juncture, so you will pardon my lack of effort compared to yours.

        • Kai

          I see something like 6 replies from you. I’m going to read and respond to them one by one, so I apologize in advance if something I say in an earlier response doesn’t account for something you said in a later response.

          1. Don’t you think it looks bad to have previously told people to “think again” and “read scholarship” only to later say you “don’t have time to study” this subject in depth? That was an unwise rhetorical gambit.

          2. Yes, the Chinese feel the British have done blameworthy things in the past. That isn’t Gelber’s point though. His point is to suggest that this blame (or at least China’s sense of victimhood from it) is unjustified or otherwise illegitimate.

          3. Why or when the emperor outlawed opium is irrelevant to whether or not the British violated Chinese law and authorities primarily in the pursuit of profit. Or that the British used national military force to subvert Chinese sovereignty, especially when it would would not have liked it being done to them in reverse.

          4. I found your paragraph starting with “If that is the case…” very difficult to follow. Maybe you were typing too fast but I’m struggling to understand what you are trying to say here.

          I get the feeling you’re trying to argue against respecting national sovereignty. Frankly, the issues surrounding this are adequately discussed and debated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

          If you have a specific argument, please articulate it and check if it isn’t already addressed on a general reference source like Wikipedia.

          Next, you seem to be saying “empire citizens/commonwealth citizens” do not need to adhere to China’s rules (laws). I disagree. By international convention, they are bound to respect the laws of the lands they are in. If they don’t want to, they can choose not to enter such lands. The exception is:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritoriality

          …which the British used national military force to obtain for its people.

          The grievances you mention are based on factually incorrect information. Therefore, they are not legitimate grievances.

          Please restate what grievances I mentioned, how they are based on factually incorrect information, and how that information is factually incorrect.

          5. If you don’t like China’s legal systems because they are different from yours or even arbitrary and unsystematic, you don’t have to play in China and thus be subject to those.

          Whatever your criticisms are of China’s legal systems and authorities then or now does not change the fact that visitors to a country are bound to respect the laws of that country regardless of their personal opinions. They can choose not to, but they will be subject to the consequences.

          Just because you don’t like or respect something doesn’t suddenly make you justified in disregarding it, especially in their jurisdiction. These are NOT foreign concepts to British people or political history.

          6. I can’t entertain this conclusion because your premise (the previous paragraph addressed by point 5 above) is not established.

          This is a country that has killed so many catholics, tortured and maimed its own, abused psychiatric treatment as a tool of the state and so much more that deserves open, just and perpetual criticism here, let’s not deny it or try to whitewash it with a faux-positif image.

          A justification that can be used against many countries. Still doesn’t wash. I can think the worst about the US and all the terrible things it has done but I’m still bound by its laws and authorities when I am on US soil. Yours is not a legitimate argument. It’s a fallacious appeal to prejudice.

          Or as you say: “Get real, mon!”

          I believe that is what Gelber is arguing, that the actions of the British were not unfair, nor unreasonable, and therefore, there was no British wrongdoing.

          You recognize that he is an apologist. That’s good enough for me. Whether people want to agree with him is up to them. I don’t.

          7. I said “selective reading” because of all the scholarship you chose to present to represent your position on this matter, you chose Gelber’s 8-page essay. The implication is that you are seeing only what you want to see despite the source presenting information that doesn’t necessarily bolster your position or may even contradict/hurt it.

          There is a fundamental bias amongst Chinese commentators (e.g. on this blog) actually, against the British position, without the balanced reading that you yourself argue for, therefore raising awareness about Gelber’s position is justified in my view.

          I understand. There’s nothing wrong with presenting other people’s articulations to help explain your position.

          Personally, everyone can be accused of having a fundamental bias until that person does or says something that makes it harder for others to accuse them of that bias. For example, we can say you have a fundamental bias against Chinese commenters because you believe they have a fundamental bias against the British position. Nevermind we haven’t established what the “British position” is or who the “Chinese commenters” are and why you think they are “fundmanetally biased” or lack “balanced reading”.

          Anyway…

          I don’t think the position on Hong Kong is resolved by a long way, for Hong Konger’s, the British, or the Chinese and that is evidenced in the narratives that emerge through media reporting on activism on both sides of the Hong Kong boundary.

          The position on what? If you say “that it was ‘wrongfully taken'”, I’d say the mainstream consensus is that, yes, it was indeed “wrongfully taken” insofar as modern mainstream public opinion believes imperialism is “wrong”. Maybe mainstream public opinion will change in the future. Who knows? But for now, it’s safely “wrong”.

          8. British remorse for its past imperialism? If you want to argue that there isn’t any, go for it.

          http://world.time.com/2013/02/20/david-cameron-in-india-should-u-k-apologize-for-its-imperial-past/

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1299111/Stop-saying-sorry-history-For-long-leaders-crippled-post-imperial-cringe.html

          Thanks, Daily Mail.

          If you encounter a British person who feels any measure of remorse for the negatives of British history, you can ask them if it is purely a Chinese construct. I don’t think it is. I think there are plenty of British people who have enough self-confidence and rationality to acknowledge the negatives of their nation’s past (and present) without it becoming irrationally debilitating because they, like the Germans, see facing history honestly and openly as a mark of strength, not weakness. This is something we criticize many Chinese for when they shy away from aspects of their past that may make them feel uncomfortable.

          It does not and should not exist, because the benefits of western industrialization, protection and development granted the Chinese during governance of Hong Kong far outweigh, in the overall run, any perceived sleights or even treatments that could be construed as unfair and unreasonable, with a factual basis to them, during colonial rule, particularly the earlier part thereof.

          Same rationalization the Chinese use for their rule over Tibet.

          Your argument is “as long as I think I helped you more than I hurt you, you cannot resent me for any hurt you feel that I caused you nor should I feel any guilt for any hurt you claim I caused you.”

          That’s a really unpersuasive argument.

          • samuk1000

            Kai I will give you further retort, because of the profundity of your misinterpretation and misunderstanding, who knows if it is lost in translation inside your head or not.

            1) I do not think so. I do not have time at this time to contribute more to this subject. However, I have had time to read something of it that I would like to share and encourage others to do so.

            I skip now to 5.

            5) Not my argument or position, even if it may seem that way. My position is that there is a misread of colonial treatment of Hong Kongese (and migrants from mainland China). The colony offered excellent rights to locals from an early time. For example, public demonstration/protest/strike action for higher wages – was tolerated and responded to. This is not the same as slavery or treating like dogs as the accusations have been flying from the resentful Chinese side – you concede that the Chinese side is resentful That is established. However, my position is not that the Chinese shouldn’t be resentful because of imperialism. My position is that the Chinese shouldn’t be resentful, because it is unhelpful, pure and simple, to the Chinese. Resentment – keeping others ‘on the hook’ does not keep anybody ‘on the hook’ except your very own Chinese self – or didn’t they bother to teach that during rote learning? Perhaps Chinese take pleasure in the taking back of Hong Kong. Thus, the 150 years of building up a successful economy under British rule, by both British establishment in Hong Kong, protection of Chinese citizens to the best of British ability – remember that China were not apt or able to do this themselves (and with the cooperation of Chinese military as well – e.g. during Japanese takeover) — has literally been *gifted* back to China. No thank yous for that – just resentment and hurling of abuse. This seems to be a Chinese character trait, it doesn’t matter if you dress it up as justified or not. We witness it with public displays of anger by Chinese nationals. We witness it in behaviour abroad of Chinese nationals. We witness it in the displays of outrage and abuse by Chinese Professors on national television. This is not a criticism, it is an observartion. It is a call to dignity FOR Chinese – for their benefit – much like open trade and Hong Kong as a British colony. Ultimately, this was for CHINESE BENEFIT – this cannot be denied. It is undeniable. Commnunist China got a free pass (excepting 50 years contract) to a top tier financial city, a world financial center and developed economy – gratis, no obligations, nothing, nada. In return, not a word of thanks, not even allowing us to keep Hong Kong island, instead, threatening to cut essential supplies. That was the Chinese position. The Chinese position was that a new generation of leaders COULD NOT possibly allow the “HUMILIATION” to continue. What humiliation? I ask you, what humiliation? There was no humiliation. There was RETALIATION. And there was also much support of CHINESE and of CHINESENESS both in Hong Kong and the mainland. Always met with propaganda designed to denigrate the British persona and the British position.

            I will move on as again, I provide you free content for this blog with only you benefitting (a theme of British kindnesses to Chinese – wholly unwarranted and undeserved from the comments made).

            2) The Chinese are wrong to consider the British blameworthy in the past or present. That is Gelber’s position and I do agree with it. Again, it is purely unhelpful to shirk responsibility and blame. It is also outright denial of facts when it comes to the benefits laden on Chinese with the development of Hong Kong as an international centre.

            3) It is not irrelevant given that British government supported opium trading was legal opium trading, not illegal drug-dealing. There is a discrepency between the two. The sovereignty question is brought into question when considering whether or not the sovereign state of China has or has not the best interests of the Chinese at heart. I would argue (again given the resources to do so) that the British had the better interests of the Chinese at heart, not only the Chinese in Hong Kong and beyond that, in China. There is much evidence of this if we do not limit this to British. Missionaries (building schools, churches, other buildings, universities, hospitals) – paid back how? Merciless killings, martyrdoms and torture based on irrational arguments and plain barbarianism by Chinese. This is not to mention the number of Chinese who have been able to escape the ‘motherland’ to better lives for themselves and their descendants than they ever could have hoped for up until now. I begin to address some of 4. in this para I think.

            “Same rationalization the Chinese use for their rule over Tibet.” Except that Tibetans were already established settlers in Tibet, whereas in Hong Kong, aside from the indigenous, they were not.

            Going back to the Mail piece, I maintain that there is not. However, what there is, and I agree again with Gelber on this point, is an attempt to make British feel guilty for the past borne out of unfounded resentment actually and miseducation by the state and political allies thereof as well.

          • Kai

            5. What is the misread?

            For example, public demonstration/protest/strike action for higher wages – was tolerated and responded to. This is not the same as slavery or treating like dogs as the accusations have been flying from the resentful Chinese side – you concede that the Chinese side is resentful That is established.

            You’re presenting two extremes, neither of which are accurate representations of what happened under HK’s colonial rule.

            The Chinese being resentful is no different from you being resentful here of their resentment. Both are premised upon a subjective believe that one was wronged by another. Resentment is a given here, so let’s stick to attempting consensus on why resentment on any side is warranted.

            However, my position is not that the Chinese shouldn’t be resentful because of imperialism. My position is that the Chinese shouldn’t be resentful, because it is unhelpful, pure and simple, to the Chinese.

            You’re telling me that everything you wrote boils down to “the Chinese should let go of the past and just move on”?

            If so, why didn’t you just write that and then let the Chinese determine if it is unhelpful to themselves.

            Resentment – keeping others ‘on the hook’ does not keep anybody ‘on the hook’ except your very own Chinese self – or didn’t they bother to teach that during rote learning?

            Why do you think I was taught rote learning?

            Thus, the 150 years of building up a successful economy under British rule, by both British establishment in Hong Kong, protection of Chinese citizens to the best of British ability – remember that China were not apt or able to do this themselves (and with the cooperation of Chinese military as well – e.g. during Japanese takeover) — has literally been *gifted* back to China.

            Wow.

            No thank yous for that – just resentment and hurling of abuse. This seems to be a Chinese character trait,

            Double wow.

            It is a call to dignity FOR Chinese – for their benefit

            Consider my responses a call to dignity for you, for your benefit, because you really need to reconsider how arrogant you are sounding.

            much like open trade and Hong Kong as a British colony. Ultimately, this was for CHINESE BENEFIT – this cannot be denied.

            Are you seriously saying British imperialism was selfless and for Chinese benefit?

            Yes, I deny it. British imperialism was not for anyone’s benefit except Britain’s own. That British imperialism had byproducts that are considered positive by those who were subjected to that imperialism does not change this fact.

            If I rob you of your money and that happens to prevent you from buying the extra hit of heroin that would’ve killed you, that doesn’t mean I robbed you for your benefit. Don’t be ridiculous.

            Commnunist China got a free pass (excepting 50 years contract) to a top tier financial city, a world financial center and developed economy – gratis, no obligations, nothing, nada. In return, not a word of thanks, not even allowing us to keep Hong Kong island, instead, threatening to cut essential supplies.

            Right, and the British built all of this up without deriving any benefit themselves whatsoever, nevermind that this still doesn’t change the fundamental fact that the island was wrongfully taken in the first place through coercion.

            I will move on as again, I provide you free content for this blog with only you benefitting (a theme of British kindnesses to Chinese – wholly unwarranted and undeserved from the comments made).

            Wow, LoL.

            2. Yes, it is indeed “purely unhelpful to shirk responsibility and blame.”

            It is also outright denial of facts when it comes to the benefits laden on Chinese with the development of Hong Kong as an international centre.

            This is a straw man argument. I’m not doing this. Very few Chinese do. For many Chinese, it is a matter of holding two thoughts in their head at once. People can disagree with imperialism while recognizing that the byproducts of it are not all bad or all good. This is why so many Chinese netizens translated on cS routinely praise aspects of HK that are better than the mainland which may be accorded to British influence.

            We cannot have a fruitful discussion if you cannot be measured in your comments.

            3. I’m awaiting the scholarship you can present regarding your claim that the opium trade engaged in by British nationals was “legal” according to Chinese authorities.

            The sovereignty question is brought into question when considering whether or not the sovereign state of China has or has not the best interests of the Chinese at heart.

            The British as world police, eh? As long as I claim you do not have your own best interests at heart, I can force you to do what I think is in your best interests?

            There is a very high bar for making this sort of case in especially developed Western nations that place a high value on self-determination. You’re coming across as arguing that the British desire to supply more opium to recreational Chinese users and addicts for profit is because the British had the best interests of the Chinese in their hearts.

            I would argue (again given the resources to do so) that the British had the better interests of the Chinese at heart, not only the Chinese in Hong Kong and beyond that, in China. There is much evidence of this if we do not limit this to British.

            Beyond subjective differences in intellect, you pretty much have the same resources I have to argue your case. Stop alluding to being able to make a better argument and just do it.

            Missionaries (building schools, churches, other buildings, universities, hospitals) – paid back how?

            Ask the missionaries. I thought they did it because it was God’s mission for them, and that fulfilling God’s will was reward in of itself. Don’t tell me I know more about Christianity than you do? No wonder they say altriusm is dead.

            Except that Tibetans were already established settlers in Tibet, whereas in Hong Kong, aside from the indigenous, they were not.

            Disingenuous hair-splitting that sidesteps the actual rebuttal to your argument that as long as one party believes they have improved a place after in their rule means the natives and other parties should not resent them for it.

            If I carjack you at gunpoint and subsquently add some nice 20-inch deep-dish wheels that cost 1000 quid each that helps me bag a ton of birds thereby increasing its value in my opinion, does that mean you shouldn’t resent me for stealing your car?

            what there is, and I agree again with Gelber on this point, is an attempt to make British feel guilty for the past borne out of unfounded resentment actually and miseducation by the state and political allies thereof as well.

            Just like people who complain that liberal Hollywood is propagating white-guilt narratives in its movies, I really don’t know what to say to you. Go ahead and think what you want. If you say something I disagree with, I may just express my disagreement and explain my reasons. Others will either agree with you or me or neither of us. Life goes on.

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»