5 ms·

I mean, sure, it would be way better if Hong Kong weren't the colonial hell-hole it was. In what sense is Hong Kong a colonial hell-hole? (Take this not as a c

I mean, sure, it would be way better if Hong Kong weren't the colonial hell-hole it was. In what sense is Hong Kong a colonial hell-hole? (Take this not as a challenge, but as a question from someone who is unfamiliar with the idea.) Is there an underclass trapped there? Do the people in it feel trapped?

scrumbledober 8y ago
i think the language was ambiguous but he was referring to hte past of Hong Kong, not currently.
vinceguidry 8y ago
It was described in the article. A lot of economic activity there is only a few steps removed from human trafficking. And I'm sure a lot of that goes on there as well, but it's hard to track for obvious reasons.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I just read the article, and I didn't see any mention of human trafficking. The Hong Kong opera school is described as indentured servitude. And I'm sure a lot of that goes on there as well, but it's hard to track for obvious reasons. I think that summarizes the constant emotional undertones in this article. This article strikes me as a deliberate re-spinning of a story meant to be triumphal, making it the sneakiest hit piece, ever, disguised as a think piece. I would think better of it, were it not for its reliance on such common knowledge preconceptions about "what the Chinese are like." (Also the French and the British. But that is just what upper-crusty people are like. Human beings are highly hierarchical, and this expresses itself in even the most hardline Marxist states. Even some of the west coast philosopher kings and queens who hang out in places like Big Sur can look down their noses at people with almost no information to prompt it.)
  - vinceguidry 8y ago
    > The Hong Kong opera school is described as indentured servitude. Which is considered by many to be a form of human trafficking. Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get out of it. I'm not entirely certain where to draw the line.
    - alistairSH 8y ago
      Particularly in the case of a minor, who has no say in the contract. Chan was sold into servitude while most of were still in primary school. The way I read it, he wasn't able to break free until his early-20s.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        Particularly in the case of a minor, who has no say in the contract. Wasn't the contract entered into by his parents? The way I read it, he wasn't able to break free until his early-20s. Was he kept under lock and key by armed guards willing to main or kill him to keep him from escaping? Or did he primarily think of it as working through a contract his parents had signed him up for?
        Pfhreak 8y ago
        Do the answers to your rhetorical questions matter? Is there any answer to your questions that makes indentured servitude of minors acceptable? I cannot conceive of any answers that would.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        Do the answers to your rhetorical questions matter? As someone who was a child who was sent away to school by his parents, let me tell you that they matter a great deal. (Particularly from the POV of an adult looking back vs. the experiences of a child.) They are precisely the questions that should be asked to distinguish manipulations of "Think of the children!" hysteria and genuine issues of the human rights of minors. Is there any answer to your questions that makes indentured servitude of minors acceptable? Of course not. But I can imagine the level of state power and impingement on private family life needed to prevent that 100%, and that would be quite horrible as well. Government should regulate the conditions under which children are kept and raised by schools. However, the degree to which someone else should decide for parents what to do also needs to take into account the rights of parents and families.
  - Hasknewbie 8y ago
    "This article strikes me as a deliberate re-spinning of a story meant to be triumphal" ^ This right here. There are many things to say about the damages caused by colonialism, but complaining that it's not covered in a book about Chan (who got immensely successful), in Hong Kong (which became very wealthy) in the 1960/70s (while the rest of China was basically burning down) misses the mark. There is a historical context that is quite specific to Hong Kong: the majority of its population actually moved there post-WW2 to escape the troubles on the mainland. Moreover before its decades of unrest, China had been ruled by the Qing, whom most Chinese considered to also be colonisers (the Qing were Manchus who imposed their customs on the Han Chinese majority), so in that regards the British were not some sort of uniquely evil rulers, they were yet another bunch of invaders, who happened to be slightly less violent than the other ones next door. I think that's why Chan ignored the colonialist angle: it's kind of hard to hate on a city if your family willingly moved there. And yes there is hardship and injustice, but in the rest of China people are either getting purged or are literally dying of hunger. I believe his apolitical view of that era is quite common amongst his generation: yep HK was ruled by some foreigners for a while, next chapter please. There are some Brits who would tell you that HK developed "thanks to" the UK (I am of the opinion that when a colonised city surpasses even the UK's GDP without being granted any meaningful democratic rights, they succeeded despite your rule, not because of it). This article takes the opposite position but still implies the same thing, that Hong-Kongers were victims with little agency, which I find patronizing when in reality they where a city of refugees who brilliantly navigated a difficult era. Likewise presenting Chan's physical trauma as representative of Hong-Kong's development strikes me as completely off. Lots and lots of people accessed the middle and upper class in the 70s and 80s. Most of them were not stuntmen, it turns out. I must say this is the first Western review I see of this book, and it's the first one that brings colonialism up seemingly out of nowhere. There is a little bit of "Chan's story is not really about him, it's about... us! the Western people" euro-centrism here, IMHO. Also, since everyone is naming their favourite Jackie Chan movie, have a look at Project A and Project A2, they're a lot of fun (A2 actually tackles some colonialism-related topics in passing).
    - kelnos 8y ago
      I read it perhaps a little simpler: the author likes Chan as a performer, but is disappointed that Chan has turned out to be a vocal, anti-democratic supporter of the Chinese Communist Party, and a critic of present-day Hong Kong (as well as Taiwan, which is of course no surprise given where his loyalties lie). I sympathize and agree with that disappointment -- the quoted jab Chan makes at Taiwan especially bothered me, as it's one of my favorite countries to visit -- but agree that twisting Chan's memoir the way he has just goes too far.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
the_af 8y ago
He is referring to the colonial Hong Kong described in the article, where there was indeed an underclass and racial discrimination and problems (even if, as the article claims, the British employed a "lighter touch" in Hong Kong than in India).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
k9s9 8y ago
I am glad you used the word trapped - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/07/hong-kong-living-trapped-lam-photos/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/07...
- the_af 8y ago
  Wow! Eye-opening. Thanks for posting it.
  - snapetom 8y ago
    That photo essay is from 2017 and addresses the ridiculously high real estate prices of Hong Kong. Colonialism isn't to blame for that. Globalism is. Colonial Hong Kong certainly wasn't all rosy. There was certainly vast inequity, but that had to do with global trends of poverty and essentially being almost a second-world economy at the time. Growing up in colonial Hong Kong was alright. Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive.
    - the_af 8y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think this was caused by colonialism (for the record, I think it's caused by unchecked capitalism rather than "globalism"). > Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive. It does sound offensive. The article doesn't even try to argue this, either. Those aren't my words either, since I know next to nothing about colonial Hong Kong.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        More housing regulation would prevent some of the coffin sized bedrooms. I'm not sure if human dignity would be increased or decreased in that case, if such regulation would cause more homelessness.
        the_af 8y ago

scrumbledober 8y ago

i think the language was ambiguous but he was referring to hte past of Hong Kong, not currently.

vinceguidry 8y ago

It was described in the article. A lot of economic activity there is only a few steps removed from human trafficking. And I'm sure a lot of that goes on there as well, but it's hard to track for obvious reasons.

stcredzero 8y ago
I just read the article, and I didn't see any mention of human trafficking. The Hong Kong opera school is described as indentured servitude. And I'm sure a lot of that goes on there as well, but it's hard to track for obvious reasons. I think that summarizes the constant emotional undertones in this article. This article strikes me as a deliberate re-spinning of a story meant to be triumphal, making it the sneakiest hit piece, ever, disguised as a think piece. I would think better of it, were it not for its reliance on such common knowledge preconceptions about "what the Chinese are like." (Also the French and the British. But that is just what upper-crusty people are like. Human beings are highly hierarchical, and this expresses itself in even the most hardline Marxist states. Even some of the west coast philosopher kings and queens who hang out in places like Big Sur can look down their noses at people with almost no information to prompt it.)
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  > The Hong Kong opera school is described as indentured servitude. Which is considered by many to be a form of human trafficking. Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get out of it. I'm not entirely certain where to draw the line.
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    Particularly in the case of a minor, who has no say in the contract. Chan was sold into servitude while most of were still in primary school. The way I read it, he wasn't able to break free until his early-20s.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Particularly in the case of a minor, who has no say in the contract. Wasn't the contract entered into by his parents? The way I read it, he wasn't able to break free until his early-20s. Was he kept under lock and key by armed guards willing to main or kill him to keep him from escaping? Or did he primarily think of it as working through a contract his parents had signed him up for?
      - Pfhreak 8y ago
        Do the answers to your rhetorical questions matter? Is there any answer to your questions that makes indentured servitude of minors acceptable? I cannot conceive of any answers that would.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        Do the answers to your rhetorical questions matter? As someone who was a child who was sent away to school by his parents, let me tell you that they matter a great deal. (Particularly from the POV of an adult looking back vs. the experiences of a child.) They are precisely the questions that should be asked to distinguish manipulations of "Think of the children!" hysteria and genuine issues of the human rights of minors. Is there any answer to your questions that makes indentured servitude of minors acceptable? Of course not. But I can imagine the level of state power and impingement on private family life needed to prevent that 100%, and that would be quite horrible as well. Government should regulate the conditions under which children are kept and raised by schools. However, the degree to which someone else should decide for parents what to do also needs to take into account the rights of parents and families.
- Hasknewbie 8y ago
  "This article strikes me as a deliberate re-spinning of a story meant to be triumphal" ^ This right here. There are many things to say about the damages caused by colonialism, but complaining that it's not covered in a book about Chan (who got immensely successful), in Hong Kong (which became very wealthy) in the 1960/70s (while the rest of China was basically burning down) misses the mark. There is a historical context that is quite specific to Hong Kong: the majority of its population actually moved there post-WW2 to escape the troubles on the mainland. Moreover before its decades of unrest, China had been ruled by the Qing, whom most Chinese considered to also be colonisers (the Qing were Manchus who imposed their customs on the Han Chinese majority), so in that regards the British were not some sort of uniquely evil rulers, they were yet another bunch of invaders, who happened to be slightly less violent than the other ones next door. I think that's why Chan ignored the colonialist angle: it's kind of hard to hate on a city if your family willingly moved there. And yes there is hardship and injustice, but in the rest of China people are either getting purged or are literally dying of hunger. I believe his apolitical view of that era is quite common amongst his generation: yep HK was ruled by some foreigners for a while, next chapter please. There are some Brits who would tell you that HK developed "thanks to" the UK (I am of the opinion that when a colonised city surpasses even the UK's GDP without being granted any meaningful democratic rights, they succeeded despite your rule, not because of it). This article takes the opposite position but still implies the same thing, that Hong-Kongers were victims with little agency, which I find patronizing when in reality they where a city of refugees who brilliantly navigated a difficult era. Likewise presenting Chan's physical trauma as representative of Hong-Kong's development strikes me as completely off. Lots and lots of people accessed the middle and upper class in the 70s and 80s. Most of them were not stuntmen, it turns out. I must say this is the first Western review I see of this book, and it's the first one that brings colonialism up seemingly out of nowhere. There is a little bit of "Chan's story is not really about him, it's about... us! the Western people" euro-centrism here, IMHO. Also, since everyone is naming their favourite Jackie Chan movie, have a look at Project A and Project A2, they're a lot of fun (A2 actually tackles some colonialism-related topics in passing).
  - kelnos 8y ago
    I read it perhaps a little simpler: the author likes Chan as a performer, but is disappointed that Chan has turned out to be a vocal, anti-democratic supporter of the Chinese Communist Party, and a critic of present-day Hong Kong (as well as Taiwan, which is of course no surprise given where his loyalties lie). I sympathize and agree with that disappointment -- the quoted jab Chan makes at Taiwan especially bothered me, as it's one of my favorite countries to visit -- but agree that twisting Chan's memoir the way he has just goes too far.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

the_af 8y ago

He is referring to the colonial Hong Kong described in the article, where there was indeed an underclass and racial discrimination and problems (even if, as the article claims, the British employed a "lighter touch" in Hong Kong than in India).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

k9s9 8y ago

I am glad you used the word trapped - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/07/hong-kong-living-trapped-lam-photos/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/07...

the_af 8y ago
Wow! Eye-opening. Thanks for posting it.
- snapetom 8y ago
  That photo essay is from 2017 and addresses the ridiculously high real estate prices of Hong Kong. Colonialism isn't to blame for that. Globalism is. Colonial Hong Kong certainly wasn't all rosy. There was certainly vast inequity, but that had to do with global trends of poverty and essentially being almost a second-world economy at the time. Growing up in colonial Hong Kong was alright. Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive.
  - the_af 8y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think this was caused by colonialism (for the record, I think it's caused by unchecked capitalism rather than "globalism"). > Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive. It does sound offensive. The article doesn't even try to argue this, either. Those aren't my words either, since I know next to nothing about colonial Hong Kong.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      More housing regulation would prevent some of the coffin sized bedrooms. I'm not sure if human dignity would be increased or decreased in that case, if such regulation would cause more homelessness.
      - the_af 8y ago