| > 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. |
> 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.