4 ms·

The people of Hong Kong are hardly winning supporters within China. Much is made of the disdain that Hong Kong people have for Chinese mainlanders, but less is

The people of Hong Kong are hardly winning supporters within China. Much is made of the disdain that Hong Kong people have for Chinese mainlanders, but less is mentioned that it is equally true in reverse. There is a commonly held belief (which I haven't researched and thus don't know if true or not) that they didn't make nearly as much of a ruckus when they were under British colonial rule, when they were de facto second-class citizens. As such, the independence/pro-democracy movement is viewed as a Western-backed attempt to destabilize China, with supporters (generalized to the whole people of Hong Kong, depending on how many of them you believe support the movement) viewed as submissives to the West. (If you add in a racial dimension, where the Hong Kong people are Asians willing to submit to "whites" while fighting back against other Asians, adds to that disdain). Any attempts to "help", as some on this thread have suggested, is only going to help affirm this belief and harden the mainland Chinese stance against Hong Kong.

steve19 9y ago
I am not arguing for British colonization, but were they second class citizens? I believe they were British Subjects and therefor entitled to all the rights of any other British subject, or at least that of British subjects in any other British Dependent Territory.
- fatjokes 9y ago
  Does a British subject have less rights than a British citizen / non-subject in that colony (e.g., the administrators)? EDIT: I asked this half rhetorically. Although I don't have citations to back it up, my impression is that natives who were colonial subjects didn't generally fare well. You may be able to argue minutae. EDIT 2: you ask a fair question, but I couldn't help but be reminded of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIvYWUVB1Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIvYWUVB1Ig :)
  - xenyal 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure there were discrepancies between the two groups as seen in India during their time as a British colony.
- forkLding 9y ago
  I think what they mean is that governors were appointed by British government from the UK region (predominatly white) and Hong Kong govt. would rotate around several colonial figures without democratic input from Hong Kong as is normal with British colonies and thus most of HongKongers life would be affected by a man they would not have an effect on. As well, "British subjects" in a colony is always a controversial and touchy subject because you have both cases of how theyre treated depending on how they were percieved by the UK. There was a reason why USA started a revolution and India wanted to be independent under Gandhi which again ties with the idea that colonial subjects are usually exploited and not heard from.
- eyedeally 9y ago
  The primary objective of British colonization around the world has been without exception the subjugation of the native population in order to extract economic benefits. The objective fact is that Hong Kong now enjoys greater electoral freedom after severance from British colonial rule and returning to Chinese sovereignty. Yet the cacophony coming out of western media are actively encouraging the repainting of an otherwise undeniable fact as somehow controversial. And then you have these nativist protestors who knowingly break the laws of the jurisdiction in a "I dare you to arrest me" fashion. It hit the peak of hypocrisy when they went to Washington to implore Donald Trump to assist them in instilling democracy in Hong Kong.
  - em500 9y ago
    > The objective fact is that Hong Kong now enjoys greater electoral freedom after severance from British colonial rule and returning to Chinese sovereignty. The Chinese had a direct hand in making that so: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-democratic-stalemate/381424/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/th...
- tim333 9y ago
  I was in HK for a while under British rule. Us Brits had some advantages. Most obviously Brits had the right to live and study and the like in the UK whereas HK Chinese didn't. Also most of the better government funded jobs tended to go to Brits rather than HK Chinese. The HK Chinese were however much better off at the time under British rule than the mainland Chinese were under China's. China was kind of a mess at the time.
  - fatjokes 9y ago
    > The HK Chinese were however much better off at the time under British rule than the mainland Chinese were under China's. China was kind of a mess at the time. Perhaps materially, but on principle I don't think anyone would want to be considered second-class.
    - tim333 9y ago
      Most of the mainland Chinese were second-class to the communist party insiders back then and couldn't even travel around China without special permits.
- balance_factor 9y ago
  I suppose it's the fading light of England's imperial hubris that is oblivious to why a Chinese man would fail to appreciate that he is the "subject" of a monarch who lies over 9,500 km away. What rights do those the British try to "subjugate" in the six counties of north Ireland have? Diplock courts, the Special Powers act, shoot-to-kill, military/intelligence collusion with loyalist death squads etc.
- teresonos 9y ago
  Things got better eventually, but at the start of colonization it was basically like Jim Crow era for Hongkongers. And even up till the 1980s, there was an undertone of white privilege, especially in Central (the business district).
forkLding 9y ago
Agree with this, parents are from the mainland and they subscribe to this thought and look down upon Hong Kong for submitting to colonial rule.
yongjik 9y ago
> If you add in a racial dimension, where the Hong Kong people are Asians willing to submit to "whites" while fighting back against other Asians, adds to that disdain. This sounds uncomfortably close to Imperial Japan's concept of "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (大東亜共栄圏)", i.e., Asians should unite together and defend themselves against Western aggressors. Under some Asian banner, of course. Oppression does not become more tolerable just because it's inflicted by "the same people".
- fatjokes 9y ago
  > Oppression does not become more tolerable just because it's inflicted by "the same people". Agreed, but it shouldn't be less tolerable either, which is more of the point.
teresonos 9y ago
> There is a commonly held belief (which I haven't researched and thus don't know if true or not) that they didn't make nearly as much of a ruckus when they were under British colonial rule During the early years of colonization there was a ton of protests and fighting, but they were brutally suppressed by the British. After getting rid of early activists and over 70+ years later, the quality of life improved so there were less and less complaints. > (If you add in a racial dimension, where the Hong Kong people are Asians willing to submit to "whites" while fighting back against other Asians, adds to that disdain). I definitely agree there is a major dose of postcolonial mentality going on among the middle-class Hongkongers. After the rich elite either moved to the West or became chummy with China, the middle class basically moved into the second tier of the "racial hierarchy (whites & hapas > rich Hongkongers > everyone else)" In my opinion, this seems to be more of a class struggle. I see a lot of blue collar Hongkongers being friends with Mainland Chinese. And I see a lot of intermarriage among them as well. Same as when I visited Taiwan. I think just like British colonization took 70+ years, after China has held onto Hong Kong long enough, things will change.
yahna 9y ago
Oh look, top post about a story where China is taking pro-democracy political prisoners is defending China. Why am I not surprised.
- fatjokes 9y ago
  If you think this post was "defending" China, then you have a very thin skin for dissent. I was instead trying to discuss the challenges these activists may face and why attempts by the west to "help" may backfire. > Why am I not surprised. Because HN does a good job allowing active debate on a complex subject?

steve19 9y ago

I am not arguing for British colonization, but were they second class citizens? I believe they were British Subjects and therefor entitled to all the rights of any other British subject, or at least that of British subjects in any other British Dependent Territory.

fatjokes 9y ago
Does a British subject have less rights than a British citizen / non-subject in that colony (e.g., the administrators)? EDIT: I asked this half rhetorically. Although I don't have citations to back it up, my impression is that natives who were colonial subjects didn't generally fare well. You may be able to argue minutae. EDIT 2: you ask a fair question, but I couldn't help but be reminded of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIvYWUVB1Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIvYWUVB1Ig :)
- xenyal 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure there were discrepancies between the two groups as seen in India during their time as a British colony.
forkLding 9y ago
I think what they mean is that governors were appointed by British government from the UK region (predominatly white) and Hong Kong govt. would rotate around several colonial figures without democratic input from Hong Kong as is normal with British colonies and thus most of HongKongers life would be affected by a man they would not have an effect on. As well, "British subjects" in a colony is always a controversial and touchy subject because you have both cases of how theyre treated depending on how they were percieved by the UK. There was a reason why USA started a revolution and India wanted to be independent under Gandhi which again ties with the idea that colonial subjects are usually exploited and not heard from.
eyedeally 9y ago
The primary objective of British colonization around the world has been without exception the subjugation of the native population in order to extract economic benefits. The objective fact is that Hong Kong now enjoys greater electoral freedom after severance from British colonial rule and returning to Chinese sovereignty. Yet the cacophony coming out of western media are actively encouraging the repainting of an otherwise undeniable fact as somehow controversial. And then you have these nativist protestors who knowingly break the laws of the jurisdiction in a "I dare you to arrest me" fashion. It hit the peak of hypocrisy when they went to Washington to implore Donald Trump to assist them in instilling democracy in Hong Kong.
- em500 9y ago
  > The objective fact is that Hong Kong now enjoys greater electoral freedom after severance from British colonial rule and returning to Chinese sovereignty. The Chinese had a direct hand in making that so: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-democratic-stalemate/381424/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/th...
tim333 9y ago
I was in HK for a while under British rule. Us Brits had some advantages. Most obviously Brits had the right to live and study and the like in the UK whereas HK Chinese didn't. Also most of the better government funded jobs tended to go to Brits rather than HK Chinese. The HK Chinese were however much better off at the time under British rule than the mainland Chinese were under China's. China was kind of a mess at the time.
- fatjokes 9y ago
  > The HK Chinese were however much better off at the time under British rule than the mainland Chinese were under China's. China was kind of a mess at the time. Perhaps materially, but on principle I don't think anyone would want to be considered second-class.
  - tim333 9y ago
    Most of the mainland Chinese were second-class to the communist party insiders back then and couldn't even travel around China without special permits.
balance_factor 9y ago
I suppose it's the fading light of England's imperial hubris that is oblivious to why a Chinese man would fail to appreciate that he is the "subject" of a monarch who lies over 9,500 km away. What rights do those the British try to "subjugate" in the six counties of north Ireland have? Diplock courts, the Special Powers act, shoot-to-kill, military/intelligence collusion with loyalist death squads etc.
teresonos 9y ago
Things got better eventually, but at the start of colonization it was basically like Jim Crow era for Hongkongers. And even up till the 1980s, there was an undertone of white privilege, especially in Central (the business district).

forkLding 9y ago

Agree with this, parents are from the mainland and they subscribe to this thought and look down upon Hong Kong for submitting to colonial rule.

yongjik 9y ago

> If you add in a racial dimension, where the Hong Kong people are Asians willing to submit to "whites" while fighting back against other Asians, adds to that disdain. This sounds uncomfortably close to Imperial Japan's concept of "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (大東亜共栄圏)", i.e., Asians should unite together and defend themselves against Western aggressors. Under some Asian banner, of course. Oppression does not become more tolerable just because it's inflicted by "the same people".

fatjokes 9y ago
> Oppression does not become more tolerable just because it's inflicted by "the same people". Agreed, but it shouldn't be less tolerable either, which is more of the point.

teresonos 9y ago

> There is a commonly held belief (which I haven't researched and thus don't know if true or not) that they didn't make nearly as much of a ruckus when they were under British colonial rule During the early years of colonization there was a ton of protests and fighting, but they were brutally suppressed by the British. After getting rid of early activists and over 70+ years later, the quality of life improved so there were less and less complaints. > (If you add in a racial dimension, where the Hong Kong people are Asians willing to submit to "whites" while fighting back against other Asians, adds to that disdain). I definitely agree there is a major dose of postcolonial mentality going on among the middle-class Hongkongers. After the rich elite either moved to the West or became chummy with China, the middle class basically moved into the second tier of the "racial hierarchy (whites & hapas > rich Hongkongers > everyone else)" In my opinion, this seems to be more of a class struggle. I see a lot of blue collar Hongkongers being friends with Mainland Chinese. And I see a lot of intermarriage among them as well. Same as when I visited Taiwan. I think just like British colonization took 70+ years, after China has held onto Hong Kong long enough, things will change.

yahna 9y ago

Oh look, top post about a story where China is taking pro-democracy political prisoners is defending China. Why am I not surprised.

fatjokes 9y ago
If you think this post was "defending" China, then you have a very thin skin for dissent. I was instead trying to discuss the challenges these activists may face and why attempts by the west to "help" may backfire. > Why am I not surprised. Because HN does a good job allowing active debate on a complex subject?