[atr_gz]

Okay, maybe you're more reasonable than it seemed at first. I understand some paranoia about foreign opinions.

But, how often does the news need to talk about the Opium Wars? I would say there are plenty of long-form articles talking about it, but does every article about Hong Kong need to give century-old context?

It's brought up in Chinese media far more often because it's useful for the CCP to remind people. It helps keep them in power and feeds their narrative that China must never be seen as weak again. And while I personally don't think excessive nationalistic propaganda is a good thing, it's at least understandable.

However, my point is that this part of history being brought up more often in Chinese media doesn't mean it's the natural state of things, or that it should be brought up more often in Western media. No one reasonable thinks the British or other foreign powers involved did the right thing there.

You claimed straw-man really easily before. Don't you think saying that HKers think this one bill will turn HK into a 1984-like society is a bit of a straw-man? I think most of them might say that the problem is not one bill, but more of a slippery slope type thing. Give an inch, give a mile.

What beliefs do I have about why parts of the world are unstable? I don't think I've expressed any, so you must be making an assumption there. And actually, if you ask around, I don't think you'll find many westerners who think colonialism was a good thing, although I'm sure there are some.

Finally, about the British wanting Hong Kong to be democratic. After further reading, 60 years might not be right. There was a plan in the 40s and 50s for democracy, but it sounds like it was the British governor of the time who blocked it for unclear reasons. I don't know if there were other attempts before the negotiations for the handover began. The 1980s are more accurate, so maybe about 20 years before Chinese rule.

That said, I still think it can be assumed that the CCP opposed democracy in Hong Kong. If you want me to say Britain messed up with Hong Kong by not allowing democracy, then I can agree with that. And I'll certainly agree that Western colonialism was for the most part a terrible thing that made the world a worse place.

[NeedMoreTea]

60 years is right. Governors were repeatedly seeking democracy and proper elections, but pressure from Beijing forced them to back down. The papers are now publicly available at the National Archive, and linked in this NYT piece:

"Chinese leaders were so opposed to the prospect of a democratic Hong Kong that they threatened to invade should London attempt to change the status quo"

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...

[confusedhnguy]

"Positive actions" is equivalent to "invasion"?

Also is the West stronger than China or not? I am confused. If it is, then this threat means nothing. If the China is stronger, then why bother to create the one country two systems policy? Also, if China was strong enough to threaten the West, why is Taiwan still an issue till today?

The reference in the article you posted says:

> not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance.

So the Chinese government doesn't want HK do declare independence instead of returning to China, and will take positive actions if that is about to happen.

Again, you and I don't agree on what the word "return" means.

[NeedMoreTea]

Let's look at this logically.

"We shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated..."

liberated - freed from enemy occupation.

OK What could China do to achieve that? Break diplomatic ties? Economic sanctions as a huge importer of HK goods and services whilst 50s China's economy was a broken mess? Close the already mostly closed border? Write an angry letter?

What's left?

Invasion. What possible alternative interpretation can you suggest? Military blockade and starve them out? That's effectively war too, but with a much greater chance of escalating if you militarily prevent other nation's shipping...

"However, the present status of Hong Kong is to our benefit" ... "Through Hong Kong we can trade..."

Clearly the Chinese benefited from the huge economic success of Hong Kong so preferred not to invade or bomb the place to oblivion. They'd already backed off destabilising the Hang Seng as they got far more benefit from that decadent Western capitalism. The whole Chinese propaganda around the democracy of Hong Kong is exposed as blatant lie.

"is the West stronger than China or not? I am confused. If it is, then this threat means nothing."

Having had two of them nations generally seem to prefer avoiding a third world war. That one can doesn't always mean one wants to, even if one is as strong as the USA. Allies may not want to join to protect a territory being handed back in 50 years. Taiwan has no such time limit.

"Chinese government doesn't want HK do declare independence instead of returning to China"

Democratic elections are not declaring independence. The people of Hong Kong could have elected their own government whilst still being a British territory until 1997. The elected body would give local powers and the state would retain others. Just as California elects a government whilst remaining part of the USA. The fact that California and other US states have a state government does not make them independent nations. There is no Californian foreign policy, diplomatic service or military, that's for the nation - the USA.

Hong Kong would still have returned to China as agreed in the treaty, whilst retaining a local, democratic government. I imagine even cities in China have some form of city government - just they are entirely non-democratic. Of course it should be noted Hong Kong itself was granted in perpetuity.

As it turned out, China threw out many of the limited democratic changes Chris Patten made in 1994, as last Governor and put in place a much less democratic regime. Giving HKers the absurd "show elections" of the Chief Executive. Patten, who was hugely unpopular with Beijing for the reforms he did put through, did so in the hope that some might stick after handover.

[confusedhnguy]

The history of the opium wars need to be as well know as the history of slavery in the US, until then, leaving this important context out of the discussion makes people think that the UK is the victim.

What I was trying to say is that media in the West pay far less attentions to the wrong doings of their allies. For example, the anniversary of the Tiananmen square incident made it to the front page of HN, but I have never seen anything on HN when it's the anniversary of the Nanjing massacre. These two are comparable because the Japanese leaders are still visiting the Yasukuni Shrine. Also, I have personally almost never see news about bad things that happened in Taiwan on Western media, does this mean that Taiwan is heaven on earth?

You may have freedom of speech, but I don't think your people are well-informed when they are flooded by cherry-picked facts, and this leads to bias against your non-allies.

About what HKers think, here is an image of the flyers they distributed during the protest: https://twitter.com/liuyun2018/status/1133227121713659904

Translation for the main bullet points:

> You don't get to have a lawyer: they will be unavailable or disappear before court.

> Imprison without trail: you will spend one or two years in prison at minimum.

> "Disappear": no one will hear from you when you are in prison, not even your families.

> Judges follow CCP's instructions: the CCP decides what happens on court.

> Super-high conviction rate: 99.94% nation wide conviction rate.

> Lighting-fast trails: No lawyers no family members, 5 minutes and it's done.

> Secret trails: When your family knows you are already in prison.

> Collective punishment： your family members are equally guilty.

Even in mainland China the situation is no where near this bad. These false accusations makes me question their motives. If you don't believe me and think we have North Korea levels of speech control, then I would ask you to please update your views or better, visit China if you get a chance.

Listing several individuals arrested for their political actions doesn't justify this baseless conjecture about the future of HK.

> Give an inch, give a mile.

Yes I know you don't trust the CCP, the CCP doesn't trust the West either. Today we implement democracy (as you defined) in HK, tomorrow you want HK to declare independence. Who's next? Shenzhen? Shanghai? We are aware of how the West has been "liberating" people in the Middle East and we are afraid of it.

Which brings me to my final point: we share completely different views of the world, and some words

You have been using the word democracy like it's some kind of panacea and refusing it is unacceptable. I (and the CCP) don't agree. Democracy is guaranteed to never be the worst, but it doesn't necessarily be the best, in all situations. Besides, based on the actions of the US after WWII, we have every reason to believe that the US doesn't want other parts of the world to stay in peace, or at least, does not have the ability to resolve the problem it created. Despite what the Western media has been saying, the CCP is actually bad at media manipulation, not nearly as good as the West. CCP thinks that if we implement democracy defined by the West, then the people will fall to Western values extremely fast and the whole country will become a huge mess. Yes, we are thinking about the Brexit drama and the likes, only more bloody.

[atr_gz]

Things aren't always that bad in China, but all of the things on the signs have happened and continue to happen. You're simply wrong that those are false accusations. If these things have happened even one time, they can happen again. It's the opposite of baseless.

I've witnessed the Chinese judicial system secondhand, as experienced by native Chinese people. Fortunately, I haven't had to experience anything firsthand. And I've read countless articles and books to the point where I know the specific incidents those signs are referring to.

I'm sorry, but I really can't spend any more time digging up sources for you. Hopefully you have a VPN or live abroad and can look for this stuff yourself.

You can probably understand why they wouldn't want to be subject to that justice system.

You keep putting words in mine and other people's mouths. I never said democracy is a panacea. I agree that Western media is biased about China. Average people are not well-informed anywhere. At least outside of China, people can easily learn if they choose to.

I agree that Japanese politicians downplaying or refusing to apologise for Nanjing is somewhat comparable to the CCPs handling of the Tiananmen incident, although Japan obviously has nothing like the censorship in China. Both are wrong. And I think if you talk to more people you'll find they agree.

[confusedhnguy]

We have finally come to the dead end (which I expected): you think that China is a 1984-like society and I disagree, and we can't convince each other. This is fine.

For all the stuff you want me to look up online, I already know, and I know more context than you do. For example, we can talk about the cultural revolution to each other freely and we understand the long list of reasons why it happened, contrary to the simplistic "evil communists" viewpoint held by some Westerners. Go to Beijing, talk to a taxi driver, listen to how they curse our government for their wrong doings, or learn Chinese and read Weibo every now and then, and you may change your mind. Hey, my English is better than 99% of mainlanders and I read Western news all the time, but I still don't think I am remotely qualified to talk about US's internal affairs. Please don't assume someone from China knows less than you do just because you have read some second-handed materials.

You didn't use the exact word "panacea", but you have been using "blocking democracy" as some kind of crime, which suggest that democracy is the only right way to go, and I disagree.

Westerners keep talking about how bad censorship is, and this is exactly why I said the CCP is terrible at media manipulation. The state of the art, as used by the West, is to report partial truth and take words out of context. Look at the link posted by NeedMoreTea, "if the Brits allowed self-governance" was conveniently omitted.

[atr_gz]

If you already know all that stuff, why are you saying that flyer is wrong? It's all true. I assumed you didn't know about it because you said it was lies.

I don't think it's literally as extreme as the book 1984, but yeah China has a lot of problems. A non-independent judicial system will never be as just as an independent one.

You've been shown to be wrong so many times in this thread and then your response is always to expand the scope of the discussion and put words in my mouth. I think it's really dishonest.

By the way I live in China, have a Chinese wife, and Chinese friends. My Chinese is far from fluent but I'm working on it. I never claimed to be an authority on China, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I don't have a simplistic view and I don't think China is totally evil. You're just using that to dismiss everything I say, even though you're the one who's been repeatedly factually wrong in this discussion. I am open-minded to your viewpoint, but you simply aren't very convincing when you argue like this.

No kidding, a cab driver can discuss his problems with the government in his own cab? Sometimes a gently disagreeing post on Weibo briefly trends and gets discussion before it's removed? Amazing.

Chinese media tells partial truths and takes things out of context constantly. The Western media are not some evil masterminds that CCTV can never match.

With that, I'm really finished here. Good luck to you.

[hker]

> For example, the anniversary of the Tiananmen square incident made it to the front page of HN, but I have never seen anything on HN when it's the anniversary of the Nanjing massacre. These two are comparable because the Japanese leaders are still visiting the Yasukuni Shrine.

On the other hand, Japan and its leaders have made lots of war apology statements, or at least statements of remorse [1], including on the Nanking Massacre. One could argue that some Japanese leaders are still visiting the Yasukuni Shrine because they think both the South East Asians (including Chinese) and the Japanese soldiers were victims to the Japanese wartime Militarism craze, which they are avoiding: note that they visit the Yasukuni Shrine not to promote Militarism or expansion, but for remembrance. And their actions elsewhere speak the same.

Chinese leaders have not made comparable statements (on the Tiananmen square crackdown), or acted in similar way (towards universal values of independent jurisdiction or respecting the constitution, etc).

If you wish the anniversary of the Nanking massacre on the front page of HN, make the leaders of China make comparable statements regarding the Tiananmen square crackdown--this will show that they share the same value as the HN crowd.

Note also that ethnic/national difference (we Chinese vs them Japanese or them United States) is not the same as value difference (we believe in rule by law vs they believe in rule of law). The HN focuses on the latter.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements...

> Listing several individuals arrested for their political actions doesn't justify this baseless conjecture about the future of HK.

Some Hong Kong people are abducted into China for publishing books that some members of CCP do not like [2], and lost their freedom. Political actions or not, such freedom of speech is protected by Hong Kong's Basic Law, while the abduction is lawless (unless you say the party is the law, and they are above the constitution in China etc).

Chinese officials repeatedly stated that they do not respect an independent jurisdiction.

This is not a baseless conjecture, and is not due to lack of trust in CCP, because they admitted it themselves and acted in the same way.

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...

> Besides, based on the actions of the US after WWII, we have every reason to believe that the US doesn't want other parts of the world to stay in peace, or at least, does not have the ability to resolve the problem it created.

Japan and US coexist peacefully.

[confusedhnguy]

> Japan and its leaders have made lots of war apology statements

In the link you provided: As of 2010, 24% of South Koreans still believe that Japan has never apologized for its colonial rule, while another 58% believe Japan has not apologized sufficiently. So apparently I am not alone.

Until the names of the "1,068 convicted war criminals" are removed from the Shrine, visiting it hurts people's feelings, period. This has nothing to do with what they visited it for. Even if you ignore other parts of Asia, those people did great harm to their own country, leaving their names in the Shrine makes people question whether the Japanese government realize how much tragedies were caused by them.

> This is not a baseless conjecture

True, I apologize. Putting myself in your perspective, I can see how scary the bookstore incident is, and the CCP really fucked up its (already bad) reputation with this one.

> Japan and US coexist peacefully.

US-Japan relationship really is the best the US can do and I still don't think they are independent from each other enough so that their relationship can be described as "peaceful". Would you say you and your shoes have a peaceful relationship? Your shoes really have no choice but to stay with you. BTW, I was thinking about the Middle East when I talk about how the the mess created by the US.

Even if you don't agree with me about how Japan is a "client state", you should at least acknowledge that their relationship is far from peaceful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Japan#Uni...

Imagine if the PLA in HK did something similar.