[Beren]

What I don't understand is why people cannot empathise with the Chinese position.

Because China's a tyranny, while the Brits gave HK over prosperous and free, plus they don't know about history.

[JohnRawls]

The people are the holders of power and The people delegate their power in democratic societies. HK is used to being democratic and that is what the people of HK want. (To be democratic) If China doesn't want that then that is Chinas problem and not HKs. Either convince them otherwise or shut up and bear with it. The crackdown will just make HK a sort of break away region filled with mistrust and perhaps even hatred for China.

Actually i do not believe that Hong KOng is a lost cause. The Baltic states endured for 50 years within the Soviet Union but we are free and independent now. Not to mention the centuries of the Tsarist rule. Basically, as soon as China will suffer cracks in its system then the regions will revolt when the time comes. As history has shown, even Stalinist measures weren't able to break the Baltic states so why the hell Chinese measures will be able to break Hong Kong?

[Beren]

The people are the holders of power and The people delegate their power in democratic societies. HK is used to being democratic and that is what the people of HK want. (To be democratic) If China doesn't want that then that is Chinas problem and not HKs.

It's HK's problem actually that they legitimately belong to China and can't do anything about returning to it.

Actually i do not believe that Hong KOng is a lost cause. The Baltic states endured for 50 years within the Soviet Union but we are free and independent now. Not to mention the centuries of the Tsarist rule. Basically, as soon as China will suffer cracks in its system then the regions will revolt when the time comes. As history has shown, even Stalinist measures weren't able to break the Baltic states so why the hell Chinese measures will be able to break Hong Kong?

Why are you making an analogy between Russian imperialism and China while there should be made an analogy between Russian imperialism and Anglo imperialism? The Baltic states never belonged to Russia legitimately and the Russians don't even claim otherwise. The Baltics could secede from the USSR only because it was falling apart anyway, now HK returns to China, whether they want to or not, because Anglo imperialism has been in decline.

[skinster]

[JohnRawls]

It's HK's problem actually that they legitimately belong to China and can't do anything about returning to it.


Why are you making an analogy between Russian imperialism and China while there should be made an analogy between Russian imperialism and Anglo imperialism? The Baltic states never belonged to Russia legitimately and the Russians don't even claim otherwise. The Baltics could secede from the USSR only because it was falling apart anyway, now HK returns to China, whether they want to or not, because Anglo imperialism has been in decline.

I am a believer that the people decide what they want and what is legitimate in their eyes. You can make an argument here that overall people of China don't want this which I will have to agree. But there is some kind of sub-divide in every country and HK , in my opinion, is a sub-divide in China. So i think that the region/sub-divide of Hong KOng decides its own legitimacy. So we are just of a different opinion on this. I understand your reasoning and it is one way to look at it. I just can't accept that understanding.

I do not think that there is also a reason to highlight British imperialism. It is not the British that are oppressing the HK people right now. It is their own Han Chinese from the mainland. I mean, yes it is the British Empires fault for creating a city-state of sorts in Southern China with its own unique culture, language, traditions etc But it has already happened and the end result is not bad. I do not see why people of HK should suffer for being different from mainland people. HK is not asking for hegemony of China nor anything special. It just wants democracy and autonomy.

If you don't like Estonia - Russia example then you can use the Russia-Ukraine or Russia-Belarussia examples. You might be quite similar culturally, religiously, economically etc but it does not mean that you should be a part of the same country. For UK, it works more or less. For other places due to historical reasons or mismanagement, it doesn't. Well, China is moving the situation in the "It doesn't" category by this. So yeah, once China weakens substantially then HK will try to remove itself from China. That will be the outcome. The examples are plenty.

[wat0n]

It's HK's problem actually that they legitimately belong to China and can't do anything about returning to it.


Why are you making an analogy between Russian imperialism and China while there should be made an analogy between Russian imperialism and Anglo imperialism? The Baltic states never belonged to Russia legitimately and the Russians don't even claim otherwise. The Baltics could secede from the USSR only because it was falling apart anyway, now HK returns to China, whether they want to or not, because Anglo imperialism has been in decline.

I think @JohnRawls's point is that HK would be independent if China's hold on its territory weakens. It's probably true, but oh well, the Chinese state isn't weak, at least not for now or in the foreseeable future.

Maybe the UK should have granted independence, and ICBMs with nukes, to HK in 1996. Let's see if China would have attempted to enforce its claim on it then

[Beren]

So we are just of a different opinion on this.

Sure, however, your opinion just doesn't have anything to do with objective realities, or history, or whatever except your own perceptions. HK isn't a sub-divide or whatever you name it, it's just part of China that was grabbed by the British due to their military superiority at the time, that's how the whole HK story started and the Chinese are absolutely right that it must be finished.

I think @JohnRawls's point is that HK would be independent if China's hold on its territory weakens.

How should it be independent in the first place while it's never been independent? JR makes something out of HK it's never been and not even supposed to be. He should celebrate HK returning to China like he celebrates the regained independence of his own country, however, HK just can't be independent simply because it's part of China while Estonia wasn't part of anything while seceding from the USSR.

[Patrickov]

^ I don't know why people pretend HK isn't in and a part of China.

No one say it isn't, but we find that it shouldn't. We have been under British rule for 150 years and our standards have been different from what Chinese have been holding. After 20 years it is apparently that they are incompatible and China finally resorted to what they only know -- violence.

Even Taiwanese, which merely were another group of Chinese and are self-run for half a century, have significantly different standards that the Chinese system no longer fits them.

China simply does not deserve it. Anyone who find their lives threatened have the rights to fight for change as they see fit.

I didn't report your post. I didn't even see it, just saw noeman's response to it. Anyway, now might be a good time to tell you to quit your boring ad-homs too. If you have any argument to make with regards to stuff I share, go ahead. Otherwise, it's pointless crying. And for someone who gets all of the support in Western mainstream media, you sure are a baby about alternative viewpoints.

I did not say my post was reported. What I said is that my posts do not deserve being flooded by pro-tyranny propaganda.

Of course my posts are not alone in this case. This actually happens for almost every thread having slightest hints that enemies of the West are worse entities.

To put things to perspective, Hong Kong media has been flooded by Chinese lies as you constantly spread, so the situation is actually in reverse of what apparently happen in the West. Only one newspaper in Hong Kong is effectively anti-China, and it is because its owner, Jimmy Lai, had his family oppressed back in the 50's or 60's.

Your constant spreading of Chinese lies or the so-called foreign support (who, I think, are traitors of those who cherish freedom and democracy) will be met with similar rage if any of my contemporaries are present on this forum. I do not see it as mere "alternative viewpoint" but advocation of tyranny and smearing of democracy and freedom.

IMHO it is an extremely impolite way to respond to posts to the very least, and it is my freedom to use any legitimate means to call out assaults.

[Patrickov]

https://twitter.com/beingrichard/status/1263977804820955136?s=20

The first part description is a lie.

It is true that most British governors were afraid of China. Patten was the first one to defy Chinese assault.

And the British granted freedom a full decade before the 1984 accords were signed, and even before that Hong Kong was seen as a safe haven for almost everyone involved, including Sun Yat-sen for God's sake.

It is the freedom and justice that counts. Democracy is what we seek to protect these when the power falls into those who have a track record of not respecting them. The British rule was not perfect (and at the beginning it could be seen as crap from a modern viewpoint), but at least they made attempts. What the Chinese have done are nothing other than destruction.

Therefore, China does not deserve to have the power UK once had, because the latter learned not to use it on a whim.

[Patrickov]

If you don't like Estonia - Russia example then you can use the Russia-Ukraine or Russia-Belarussia examples. You might be quite similar culturally, religiously, economically etc but it does not mean that you should be a part of the same country. For UK, it works more or less. For other places due to historical reasons or mismanagement, it doesn't. Well, China is moving the situation in the "It doesn't" category by this. So yeah, once China weakens substantially then HK will try to remove itself from China. That will be the outcome. The examples are plenty.

Maybe the UK-US example fits more. They were the same people with UK and the UK was arguably much freer than China has ever been, but those like Washington, Jefferson and Franklin still fought their way to independence.

[wat0n]

How should it be independent in the first place while it's never been independent? JR makes something out of HK it's never been and not even supposed to be. He should celebrate HK returning to China like he celebrates the regained independence of his own country, however, HK just can't be independent simply because it's part of China while Estonia wasn't part of anything while seceding from the USSR.

I'm not making a claim on what should be but one based on what would be the case if Chinese hold over the territory weakened enough. I think it's easy to understand why this would be the case... But it's unlikely we'll see this happen in the foreseeable future.

[Rugoz]

How should it be independent in the first place while it's never been independent? JR makes something out of HK it's never been and not even supposed to be. He should celebrate HK returning to China like he celebrates the regained independence of his own country, however, HK just can't be independent simply because it's part of China while Estonia wasn't part of anything while seceding from the USSR.

That's a weird argument. Many nation states, especially in Europe, have been created "out of nothing". Estonia has been independent for ~19 years before WW2. Singapore was a British colony and is independent now. If Hong Kong has an identity distinct for China, it can be an independent nation, in theory.

[Beren]

I'm not making a claim on what should be but one based on what would be the case if Chinese hold over the territory weakened enough. I think it's easy to understand why this would be the case... But it's unlikely we'll see this happen in the foreseeable future.

Sure, it's all a matter of power relations, however, even one's fantasies should be based on reality, otherwise he or she just happens to make La La Land arguments.

That's a weird argument. Many nation states, especially in Europe, have been created "out of nothing".

They can be created out of nothing, but they can't be created out of another nation state. HK is actually part of the Chinese nation, it's not in purgatory or something.

[Patrickov]

They can be created out of nothing, but they can't be created out of another nation state.

Why not?

[Beren]

Why not?

Because you're the same nation supposed to have and live in the same nation state then, which, in your case, is the People's Republic of China.

[Rugoz]

They can be created out of nothing, but they can't be created out of another nation state. HK is actually part of the Chinese nation, it's not in purgatory or something.

Not "out of nothing" in the sense that they haven't been part of an empire or nation state before. They became independent because the political entity the belonged to wasn't strong or willing enough to hold on to that territory. If China isn't strong enough to hold on to Hong Kong, Hong Kong will become independent. It's pretty normal for an independent state to be "illegitimate" at the beginning of its history.

[Patrickov]

Because you're the same nation supposed to have and live in the same nation state then, which, in your case, is the People's Republic of China.

Nothing deserves to be that forever. Even this so-called People's Republic of China has only been around for 70 years. Hong Kong was not part of it until 23 years ago.

And seriously, one can argue that China does not run like a nation state anyways.

Although I'd like to re-clarify my stand that independence is not the main concern and should not be seen as an objective (otherwise we will end up like Singapore, which we actually don't admire too much). Freedom and justice is. (Democracy is a means to uphold these)

[JohnRawls]

Sure, however, your opinion just doesn't have anything to do with objective realities, or history, or whatever except your own perceptions. HK isn't a sub-divide or whatever you name it, it's just part of China that was grabbed by the British due to their military superiority at the time, that's how the whole HK story started and the Chinese are absolutely right that it must be finished.


How should it be independent in the first place while it's never been independent? JR makes something out of HK it's never been and not even supposed to be. He should celebrate HK returning to China like he celebrates the regained independence of his own country, however, HK just can't be independent simply because it's part of China while Estonia wasn't part of anything while seceding from the USSR.

By that logic no new countries should exist but Germany somehow exists. Italy somehow exists. USA somehow exists. Hell, why is most of South America not part of Portugal or Spain? Self-determination is not some mythical construct.

Your objective reality is not my objective reality. I am not going to pretend that it is. Ukraine is a separate part from Russia although it has been part of Russia for a great amount of time. Why can't HK people have autonomy or democracy or independence? Your argument is just because they have been historically part of China. As if that is some kind of prohibiting or main determining factor to resolve the situation. Also you are advocating ignoring the will of the people of Hong Kong, so i am not sure how just silencing/oppressing Hong Kong will resolve the situation. As soon as China weakens, HK will definitely lash out.

I am not quite sure about your position. Your idea is that HK should be part of China just because it has previously been part of China as i said. Alternatively it might be because Britain reformed it in to something unique so that uniqueness needs to be de-reformed to fix imperialism. Both of the arguments treat the people of Hong Kong as objects. I might be wrong but that is how it sounds to me.

[Beren]

If China isn't strong enough to hold on to Hong Kong, Hong Kong will become independent. It's pretty normal for an independent state to be "illegitimate" at the beginning of its history.

Hong Kong could be independent indeed and it's not really a matter of legitimacy whether it is or not, however, legitimacy is exactly the topic discussed here, on my part at least. As to legitimacy, HK is part of China and shouldn't even strive for independence or even autonomy because it's just a Chinese island that was grabbed by a foreign military force and that's how the whole story started in the first place.

[Patrickov]

As to legitimacy, HK is part of China and shouldn't even strive for independence or even autonomy because it's just a Chinese island that was grabbed by a foreign military force and that's how the whole story started in the first place.

They ended it with a treaty (actually three).

If that does not justify the legitimacy of the British then much of the current United States and the concessions made by Germany after both World Wars were also illegitimate, which I disagree.

The current legitimacy should only be based on the 1984 accords.

Meanwhile, Chinese ideology also suggests that a regime loses its legitimacy to rule if it does not respect its people. The final three imperial dynasties and Chiang's Republic of China fell because of this. We see the Communist regime the same.