9 ms·
Only partly. First of all the British are the ones that made sure there would be no general elections. They basically gambled that they would keep their power b
by rjzzleep 7y ago
Only partly. First of all the British are the ones that made sure there would be no general elections. They basically gambled that they would keep their power by appeasing the PRC.
And the British were at the forefront of deciding who would be part of the 1200 man election council to appoint the CEO of Hong Kong.
Pretending like we can just scrap the history of a place and our own hand in it just because we don't like the outcome is disingenous at best.
- ltbarcly3 7y ago> "Pretending like we can just scrap the history of a place and our own hand in it" If two people commit a crime by one person first knocking the victim down and the second person tying them up, good luck trying to defend the second person by saying "we can't scrap the history of the crime and the first criminals hand it". Ethically it does not matter whether or not someone made it easier for you to commit a crime. In fact, according to most legal traditions it would be considered worse. No, I think the people you get to put the full blame on is whoever is currently doing the oppressing. (Finally, I reject the idea that 'we' somehow inherit blame from hundreds of years ago when that guilt is used in an attempt to rationalize current oppression.)