Re-read the text. I didn't call anyone Barbaric. I mentioned Barbaric in context of the supplanted system which is the HK system in this case but to clarify, i didn't state that the Chinese or HK systems are inferior in any way to each other.
Do you understand that this is *confusing* -- ?
'Barbaric' is a strong word, and you used it in reference to *something*, but it's unclear whether you were applying the term to describe the Hong Kong common law system or China's.
You *did* characterize one or the other system as being 'superior', but, again, you're not providing any specifics or evidence -- just your own descriptions:
Basically HK people want the system that they created to stay and they legitely consider the Chinese version of the common law system that they have created to be superior what mainland China has.
I don't see how this topic can be discussed without vague concepts. If we go in to modern concrete examples then this will turn in to side tacking and who you believe to have a better system for example EU or US. So whos system is better?
The West is known for their *bourgeois* revolutions of the 18th century, preceded by the English Revolution in the 17th century:
The Marxist view of the English Revolution suggests that the events of 1640 to 1660 in Britain were a bourgeois revolution in which the final section of English feudalism (the state) was destroyed by a bourgeois class (and its supporters) and replaced with a state (and society) which reflected the wider establishment of agrarian (and later industrial) capitalism. Such an analysis sees the English Revolution as pivotal in the transition from feudalism to capitalism and from a feudal state to a capitalist state in Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_R ... ist_theory
The American and French Revolutions were similar, in repudiating monarchies and overthrowing feudal relations in favor of more-inclusive citizenship and private property (equity) ownership -- historically progressive at the time.
How do you even decide that? Then there are examples of some pre-industrial tribes vs modern versions of capitalism, liberalism, socialism, communism etc. Is it still okay for us to decide what is better for the people of those tribes? I can see many problems that will arise with concrete examples in this topic.
If you really want to abstain from value-judgments about historical developments *altogether*, then you've effectively *forfeited* all political claims and lines you may have, or have had. I doubt that you're really interested in forfeiting your politics *entirely*.
*Of course* analyzing history involves making comparisons and value judgments -- not necessarily to *impose* on others, though, as you're suggesting.
As for HK specifically. A large chunk of people of Hong Kong run away from China during its hard core communist days because HK was a part of Britain because they were prosecuted or afraid of mainland CHina in some way or the other. So any infringement on the freedoms that Britain provided is considered by them to be colonization. They simply do not believe the mainland system to be fair to them right now or historically due to the history of the region.
Can we get a little more *concrete* than just 'beliefs', though -- ?
Who's currently the most vocal proponent of Hong Kong separatism right now? Any names? Are they on Wikipedia, etc. -- ?
I am not sure why is this so surprising. You can quote extradition laws here or the recent legislation that allows to remove candidates at the whim of the mainland. Or the fact that almost all of the notable opposition candidates or supporters are either under legal prosecution, have left HK or in jail. Access to social mobility ladder has been more or less not controlled by anyone but with the mainland cracking down it seems that the social mobility ladder is basically under Chinas control and they will cut you off unless you don't agree on some question which don't even have to be related to HK being a part of China or not. I am a bit baffled that you call them separatists though. This movement or protests have not been separatists at its core. So why are they separatists? Can they be freedom fighters perhaps for their cultural rights, rights to expression or even the ability to decide their own workers rights and so on.
If the Hong Kong separatist movement is genuinely interested in workers rights it would be for the workers rights of the workers of the *world*, and not just for (necessarily-separatist) *Hong Kong* workers rights -- early on the protestors had an opportunity to reach out to *Chinese* workers, to promote international workers solidarity, but that didn't happen, which is telling by omission.