[duguxu]

> Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't?

I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. But notice there was serious corruption in the government of Hong Kong before 1970s and pressure also comes from British officials and businessmen. It’s hard for me to imagine Britain would just abandon democracy mainly because of Beijing’s pressure while at the same time be an anti-communism fortress for western bloc and proactively impose sanctions against mainland. On the other hand, it’s well known there are some controversies between London and Beijing in 1980s after the handover was determined. I think this sentence mixes these two periods together and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided.

> This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner.

It’s just an analogy. Is order a bad thing for you? Of course not. But I think most westerners wouldn’t regard “order only” in political background as just respecting rules and keeping tidy. Many words are sometimes overused with political agenda behind. Stressing ONLY something means extremism and no compromise at all for other good. I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions. Chinese like freedom as much as you.

[tempguy9999]

> I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. [...] and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided.

OK, so you accept it but reject it. OK. In case you're interested, if you'd followed the link you'd have seen this

"In it, Zhou says Beijing would regard allowing Hong Kong’s people to govern themselves as a “very unfriendly act,” says Cantlie. Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, China’s director of “overseas Chinese affairs,” told Hong Kong union representatives that China’s leaders would “not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance:"

and also the original typewritten docs https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still... faded but readable.

> I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions

It wasn't a conclusion, only questions. I just didn't understand what you're saying. I still don't. I was just asking for clarification.

> and proactively impose sanctions against mainland

As someone aware of british abuses of power (opium war etc) and like to know more, would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time. I did some googling but found nothing (probably looking in the wrong place).

[duguxu]

> OK, so you accept it but reject it.

I had read them in Chinese. I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion, which would probably soon become an independent country like Singapore. Very likely Beijing believed it's harder to integrate an independent polity than a handover from Britain in the future. It's more like a concern against independence in my opinion.

The opportunity for democracy I referred to is the kind of attempts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) . Pressure from Beijing doesn't always make a proper excuse. It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side. I am not trying to argue who is responsible, but considering the final results we have in history, the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think.

> I still don't

Some people may think "freedom" is freedom and "order" is order. But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people. That's why there should be some talking about shared values instead stressing only on one of them, even if it is absolutely good.

> would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time.

My mistake, it's not just sanction but embargo. see https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html

[tempguy9999]

> I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion

It didn't say that, it said it was an extension to introduce more democracy. Not 'self-governed Dominion'.

But the point was britain tried to give in the 1950s what you say it didn't until the 1980s, and it was down to chinese pressure - they threatened to invade!

I'll read up on the link to the young plan, thanks.

> It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side

You keep throwing in this stuff without telling me what britain actually did. I can't respond - or learn - unless you give me proper information.

> the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think

Again, justify what? What practical actions? What do the protestors think? I literally don't understand what you're saying. I realise your english is infinitely better than my chinese is ever likely to be (regrettably!), I'm not criticising that, just asking you explain what you mean.

> But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people

Okay, you are exactly right, we have to be precise about meanings, and propaganda distorts. But I spelt out what freedom meant clearly, and I very carefully excluded rioting or other destructive behaviour. That is not tolerable in the west, same as anywhere. The reaction of UK politicians to images of that were real dismay and shock.

And I can (theoretically) make the case for chinese communism as a source of stability. Whether that kind of stability (which places the state above the individual) is something I would wish to live under or impose on others is quite another matter.

So let's talk - what are those shared values between east and west? This is a very important point you raise and I'd like to know because other than trivial stuff (looking after your kids etc) it would be important for me to understand where we unite, and divide.

> My mistake, it's not just sanction...

From memory, as I can't find the link, china was considered an aggressor by invading north korea, and it wasn't just the UK but a large collection of countries that embargoed/sanctioned it (seems the words mean much the same thing here, I had to look up the distinction!). It wasn't just the UK by any means (if you want a ref, just ask, I can't find it right now).

But yes, rights and wrongs aside, the fact there was a uk-supported embargo and china still threatened to invade, is interesting and I can't explain it. Point taken.

[duguxu]

Sorry for my bad English! I will try my best to explain everything you don't understand although I can't promise I could make it. First of all, I have been concentrating on the topic of a more effective propaganda. Whether you like or not, these are the real thoughts of a portion of people targeted. Please pay attention to tell apart the discussion of tactics of propaganda from my personal political view.

> It didn't say that, it said it was an extension to introduce more democracy. Not 'self-governed Dominion'.

Read the first image of https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...

> You keep throwing in this stuff without telling me what Britain actually did. I can't respond - or learn - unless you give me proper information.

Read the Young plan.

> Again, justify what? What practical actions? What do the protesters think? I literally don't understand what you're saying.

Some protesters think the colony is a good symbol of democracy. Many mainlanders disagree. Because to prove colony really cared about democracy, abandoned plan is not enough, and practical action records are required, like limited democratic legitimacy for a small area within Beijing's tolerance. I can't see how China wound invade just because of any small-scale democratic experiment.

> But I spelt out what freedom meant clearly, and I very carefully excluded rioting or other destructive behaviour.

I noticed that. I believe we would agree with each other on freedom and many other values most of the time. I am not arguing with you on the difference between us or between protesters and tourists. The point I raised is that some propaganda towards mainlanders did distort, without spelling out the meaning clearly and excluding extremism carefully, and this is bad, even if their heart is good, that's all.

> From memory, as I can't find the link, china was considered an aggressor by invading north Korea, and it wasn't just the UK but a large collection of countries that embargoed/sanctioned it (seems the words mean much the same thing here, I had to look up the distinction!). It wasn't just the UK by any means (if you want a ref, just ask, I can't find it right now).

Nobody denies this. It's in the name of United Nations and everyone knows Uncle Sam is the leader of the embargo. What I want to say is, Hong Kong was strong enough at that time to neglect certain pressure from the mainland and push Britain's policy.

[tempguy9999]

You have nothing to apologise for in your english, don't worry.

OK, let me read your links and I'll get back to you.

thanks for your patience

[tempguy9999]

Sorry, long day. Will get back either this eve or tomorrow morning.

[tempguy9999]

Please excuse the delay, yesterday wasn't good and I didn't get much done. I was very much not trying to avoid replying.

> First of all, I have been concentrating on the topic of a more effective propaganda

I'm unclear whose propaganda you're referring to (british or chinese or both), or what the effect you believe it's having.

> these are the real thoughts of a portion of people targeted

OK, what are these real thoughts? I'm really curious because this is rather central to the issue.

> Read the first image

I see what you're getting at but it's a quote from a chinese official: "with regard to hong kong there was an important point he (Chou En-Lai) wished to put forward personally, to Mr macmillan or at least to his deputy. A plot or conspiracy was being hatched to make hiong kong a self-governing dominion like singapore"

Precisely, the letter is quoting an opinion coming from Mr Chou En-Lai. Mr Chou is making this claim, not the brits. Whether that opnion is right or wrong, it appears to have been used by china to kill the attempt to kill an early attempt at introducing democracy by the brits. Again, britain tried to introduce democracy much earlier, do you accept this?

> Read the Young plan.

Interesting stuff, thanks. Ok...

Mark young said: "...the means by which in Hong Kong, as elsewhere in the Colonial Empire, the inhabitants of the Territory can be given a fuller and more responsible share in the management of their own affairs"

and

"it is considered essential that the important issues involved should be thoroughly examined in Hong Kong itself, the fullest account being taken of the views and wishes of the inhabitants"

So the UK gov't tried. It was scuppered by business - as you correctly said - and part of the same UK government that tried to introduce it. If you state the uk engaged in "resistance and obstruction" then at least also acknowledge that it also tried to introduce the very thing you say it (and big business) resisted and obstructed.

Let's have a look at the chinese behaviout: "With the support of Grantham, British-educated lawyer and unofficial legislator Man-kam Lo, one of the three members in the 15-man [legislative council] was also strongly opposed to the Young Plan"

So it wasn't just the brits then.

It would be inetersting to understand the political machinations that were going on back then.

> Some protesters think the colony...

Sorry, I'm having trouble decoding most of that paragraph. I wish I could speak chinese then we would have less of a barrier. Sorry.

(erm, I'm being stupid and it probably won't happen as I have so much to do, but any good resouces for learning chinese? Preferably online to start with)

> I can't see how China wound invade just because of any small-scale democratic experiment.

Well, it threatened to, in writing, and had already invaded north korea hence the sanctions you mentioned imposed by the UN. Whether it was small-scale or not is irrelevant. It made a very credible threat.

> The point I raised is that some propaganda towards mainlanders did distort, without spelling out the meaning clearly and excluding extremism carefully

I'm not aware of propaganda by hong kong citizens towards the mainland. They strongly interpreted the actions of china as potentially hostile (see hker's post you have not replied to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20405269 ). I can see why. The ccp is not playing nice. You point out britain's faults clearly and I accept many of them, but you are not addresssing china's behaviour with the same critical eye.

Anyway, thanks and sorry for the long delay in answering.

[duguxu]

it’s UN sanctions against China during Korean war. i will add more reply later.