3 ms·

> Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't? I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. But notice there was serious

by duguxu 7y ago

> Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't? I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. But notice there was serious corruption in the government of Hong Kong before 1970s and pressure also comes from British officials and businessmen. It’s hard for me to imagine Britain would just abandon democracy mainly because of Beijing’s pressure while at the same time be an anti-communism fortress for western bloc and proactively impose sanctions against mainland. On the other hand, it’s well known there are some controversies between London and Beijing in 1980s after the handover was determined. I think this sentence mixes these two periods together and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided. > This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner. It’s just an analogy. Is order a bad thing for you? Of course not. But I think most westerners wouldn’t regard “order only” in political background as just respecting rules and keeping tidy. Many words are sometimes overused with political agenda behind. Stressing ONLY something means extremism and no compromise at all for other good. I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions. Chinese like freedom as much as you.

tempguy9999 7y ago
> I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. [...] and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided. OK, so you accept it but reject it. OK. In case you're interested, if you'd followed the link you'd have seen this "In it, Zhou says Beijing would regard allowing Hong Kong’s people to govern themselves as a “very unfriendly act,” says Cantlie. Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, China’s director of “overseas Chinese affairs,” told Hong Kong union representatives that China’s leaders would “not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance:" and also the original typewritten docs https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/ https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still... faded but readable. > I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions It wasn't a conclusion, only questions. I just didn't understand what you're saying. I still don't. I was just asking for clarification. > and proactively impose sanctions against mainland As someone aware of british abuses of power (opium war etc) and like to know more, would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time. I did some googling but found nothing (probably looking in the wrong place).
- duguxu 7y ago
  it’s UN sanctions against China during Korean war. i will add more reply later.
- duguxu 7y ago
  > OK, so you accept it but reject it. I had read them in Chinese. I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion, which would probably soon become an independent country like Singapore. Very likely Beijing believed it's harder to integrate an independent polity than a handover from Britain in the future. It's more like a concern against independence in my opinion. The opportunity for democracy I referred to is the kind of attempts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) . Pressure from Beijing doesn't always make a proper excuse. It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side. I am not trying to argue who is responsible, but considering the final results we have in history, the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think. > I still don't Some people may think "freedom" is freedom and "order" is order. But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people. That's why there should be some talking about shared values instead stressing only on one of them, even if it is absolutely good. > would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time. My mistake, it's not just sanction but embargo. see https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    > I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion It didn't say that, it said it was an extension to introduce more democracy. Not 'self-governed Dominion'. But the point was britain tried to give in the 1950s what you say it didn't until the 1980s, and it was down to chinese pressure - they threatened to invade! I'll read up on the link to the young plan, thanks. > It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side You keep throwing in this stuff without telling me what britain actually did. I can't respond - or learn - unless you give me proper information. > the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think Again, justify what? What practical actions? What do the protestors think? I literally don't understand what you're saying. I realise your english is infinitely better than my chinese is ever likely to be (regrettably!), I'm not criticising that, just asking you explain what you mean. > But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people Okay, you are exactly right, we have to be precise about meanings, and propaganda distorts. But I spelt out what freedom meant clearly, and I very carefully excluded rioting or other destructive behaviour. That is not tolerable in the west, same as anywhere. The reaction of UK politicians to images of that were real dismay and shock. And I can (theoretically) make the case for chinese communism as a source of stability. Whether that kind of stability (which places the state above the individual) is something I would wish to live under or impose on others is quite another matter. So let's talk - what are those shared values between east and west? This is a very important point you raise and I'd like to know because other than trivial stuff (looking after your kids etc) it would be important for me to understand where we unite, and divide. > My mistake, it's not just sanction... From memory, as I can't find the link, china was considered an aggressor by invading north korea, and it wasn't just the UK but a large collection of countries that embargoed/sanctioned it (seems the words mean much the same thing here, I had to look up the distinction!). It wasn't just the UK by any means (if you want a ref, just ask, I can't find it right now). But yes, rights and wrongs aside, the fact there was a uk-supported embargo and china still threatened to invade, is interesting and I can't explain it. Point taken.

by duguxu 7y ago

tempguy9999 7y ago

> I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. [...] and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided. OK, so you accept it but reject it. OK. In case you're interested, if you'd followed the link you'd have seen this "In it, Zhou says Beijing would regard allowing Hong Kong’s people to govern themselves as a “very unfriendly act,” says Cantlie. Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, China’s director of “overseas Chinese affairs,” told Hong Kong union representatives that China’s leaders would “not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance:" and also the original typewritten docs https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/ https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still... faded but readable. > I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions It wasn't a conclusion, only questions. I just didn't understand what you're saying. I still don't. I was just asking for clarification. > and proactively impose sanctions against mainland As someone aware of british abuses of power (opium war etc) and like to know more, would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time. I did some googling but found nothing (probably looking in the wrong place).

duguxu 7y ago
it’s UN sanctions against China during Korean war. i will add more reply later.
duguxu 7y ago
> OK, so you accept it but reject it. I had read them in Chinese. I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion, which would probably soon become an independent country like Singapore. Very likely Beijing believed it's harder to integrate an independent polity than a handover from Britain in the future. It's more like a concern against independence in my opinion. The opportunity for democracy I referred to is the kind of attempts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) . Pressure from Beijing doesn't always make a proper excuse. It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side. I am not trying to argue who is responsible, but considering the final results we have in history, the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think. > I still don't Some people may think "freedom" is freedom and "order" is order. But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people. That's why there should be some talking about shared values instead stressing only on one of them, even if it is absolutely good. > would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time. My mistake, it's not just sanction but embargo. see https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  > I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion It didn't say that, it said it was an extension to introduce more democracy. Not 'self-governed Dominion'. But the point was britain tried to give in the 1950s what you say it didn't until the 1980s, and it was down to chinese pressure - they threatened to invade! I'll read up on the link to the young plan, thanks. > It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side You keep throwing in this stuff without telling me what britain actually did. I can't respond - or learn - unless you give me proper information. > the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think Again, justify what? What practical actions? What do the protestors think? I literally don't understand what you're saying. I realise your english is infinitely better than my chinese is ever likely to be (regrettably!), I'm not criticising that, just asking you explain what you mean. > But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people Okay, you are exactly right, we have to be precise about meanings, and propaganda distorts. But I spelt out what freedom meant clearly, and I very carefully excluded rioting or other destructive behaviour. That is not tolerable in the west, same as anywhere. The reaction of UK politicians to images of that were real dismay and shock. And I can (theoretically) make the case for chinese communism as a source of stability. Whether that kind of stability (which places the state above the individual) is something I would wish to live under or impose on others is quite another matter. So let's talk - what are those shared values between east and west? This is a very important point you raise and I'd like to know because other than trivial stuff (looking after your kids etc) it would be important for me to understand where we unite, and divide. > My mistake, it's not just sanction... From memory, as I can't find the link, china was considered an aggressor by invading north korea, and it wasn't just the UK but a large collection of countries that embargoed/sanctioned it (seems the words mean much the same thing here, I had to look up the distinction!). It wasn't just the UK by any means (if you want a ref, just ask, I can't find it right now). But yes, rights and wrongs aside, the fact there was a uk-supported embargo and china still threatened to invade, is interesting and I can't explain it. Point taken.