3 ms·
They didn't have much choice. The new territories had to go back because they were leased. So all that they could have held on to was Hong Kong island and Kow
by deerpig 10y ago
They didn't have much choice. The new territories had to go back because they were leased. So all that they could have held on to was Hong Kong island and Kowloon. There wasn't the infrastructure to maintain those areas. And China was a very different place in those days, the insane crap that they said to the British during handover negotiations made anything Donald Trump saying today look intelligent... It was a stressful time to be living there. So today Hong Kong is a Chinese colony instead of a slightly (yes, slightly) more benign British colony.
- andrepd 10y agoSlightly? As far as I know, the United Kingdom is a democracy while China is an oppressive, imperialist, authoritarian state under oligarchic rule, with complete disregard for human rights or the cries for independence and democracy from its dependencies. Would it be ruled by Britain instead of China there would be a world of difference, don't kid yourself.
- Cyph0n 10y agoCan you name a democratic country with 1 billion+ people that has achieved what China has in such a short period of time? Nope. Do you think China would have progressed the same if it wasn't managed as an autocracy?
- jungletek 10y agoSo the ends justify the means, is what you're saying?
- Cyph0n 10y agoNope. Read my comment again. Here, I'll make it easier: > Can you name a democratic country with 1 billion+ people that has achieved what China has in such a short period of time? Nope. Do you think China would have progressed the same if it wasn't managed as an autocracy?
- andrepd 10y agoWho cares 1,300,000,000 people live without liberty and are subject to humans rights violations? They make cheap shit. Is that what you're saying?
- Cyph0n 10y agoI asked you two questions, and you answer with another question. > They make cheap shit. What?