3 ms·

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

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).

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).