6 ms·

Why aren't we talking more about the history of HK's creation, namely the Opium wars? I suspect that the majority of people that feel strongly about China's beh

by tombh 7y ago

Why aren't we talking more about the history of HK's creation, namely the Opium wars? I suspect that the majority of people that feel strongly about China's behaviour don't actually have any idea what the British did to China in the middle of the 19th century, namely: in the style of a mafia get 10s of millions of Chinese addicted to Opium and then go to war with them when China tried to put an end to the trade. It is by all today's measures what I'm sure the majority of people would call evil. I am of course not at all advocating today's Chinese violence. I just don't understand how any of us have a leg to stand on in feeling outraged. This is the world, the so-called modern world, that, by using mobile phones and modern medicine, we've implicitly signed up for. HK is but one example of the price of modernity. What if native Americans or indigenous Australians rose up in the same way, asking for their land back? Or Indians and Africans rose up asking for their natural resources and slave labour back? The real "crime" here is that we're so morally bankrupt and out of touch with history that all we can do is watch and tweet hashtags. Globalisation is here to stay. The quality of Western life is fundamentally dependent on Chinese labour, manufacturing and technology. We don't get to reap the benefits of that and at the same time arrogantly and unreflectively denounce their political policies. And to repeat, this is not a justification of China's recent stance on HK or any of its other foreign or domestic policies. Perhaps we should boycott everything Chinese? Of course that is never going to happen. But we can at least help each other remember how exactly the West came to be. Though of course we don't because we're the top dogs and no one is forcing us to. Which I might argue is the true source of the outrage that most of us feel in hearing the news from HK: outrage that something is actually forcing us to reflect on our own circumstances. And what better scapegoat to deflect those difficult emotions than a quintessentially foreign, little understood far far-away culture.

wtdata 7y ago
What does that got to do with anything? Why do people keep bringing centuries old examples of the shortcomings of western civilization, to apologize for the very present disregards against human rights in many non-western countries? Specially in a case where the legacy that is being put in question is exactly the culture of respect for human rights, civil liberties and democracy brought by an Western nation, that is now under threat by an autocratic power: The central Government of China. There is a term coined specifically for that: Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- tombh 7y ago
  My points about about native Americans and Australians could be construed as Whataboutism. But the Opium Wars aren't fodder in an equivalency argument, they are literally the very reason that HK even exists. Again, I must repeat, I do not at all condone China's lack of respect for human rights. All I am saying is that people need to know the actual context of the situation. If HK had come into being due to centuries of mutual, conflict-free trade, then I think this would be different situation. The fact is though that HK is the legacy of a sustained, coordinated, state-level, brutal and greedy campaign to extract as much money as possible from the Chinese.
  - wtdata 7y ago
    > All I am saying is that people need to know the actual context of the situation. The actual context of the situation is that indeed, if the British hadn't controlled Hong Kong for a time this conflict wouldn't be happening. It wouldn't be happening, because people in Hong Kong wouldn't know what it is to live in a free democratic society as they lived in the last half a century of British "occupation", so they would just accept the human rights and personal freedoms violations of the autocratic government of China, without knowing any better.
    - tombh 7y ago
      I agree that free, democratic societies are better. I am in fact British, so I should know. Listen, I'm genuinely interested in how you and others justify the destiny of Hong Kong. So we're in agreement that democracy is better, and for example there's a very tenuous argument that the violence the West used in Iraq was necessitated by an existing autocratic regime. However the violence used by the UK to gain HK was utterly unprompted and motivated purely by economic greed. Democracy may well be the better choice for HK, but in what way does it deserve it? How can any argument in support of HK's democracy not also justify absolute violence against all other currently non-democratic states? It's unfortunate, but HK didn't come across democracy by its own struggle in the way most countries did. Such foundations are just inherently unstable, how can it possibly be any other way?
simonh 7y ago
>Why aren't we talking more about the history of HK's creation, namely the Opium wars? Because the people of Hong Kong have no responsibility for the Opium Wars perhaps? I'm not sure what you are actually suggesting. >The real "crime" here is that we're so morally bankrupt and out of touch with history that all we can do is watch and tweet hashtags. Ok, what do you want to do?
- tombh 7y ago
  Then who does have responsibility? Surely you're not suggesting that all is forgiven and forgotten once the perpetrators are dead? I'm suggesting that, figuratively, if you actually knew that you lived by a volcano, the emotional shock caused by its eruption could be tempered by some foresight. The Opium Trade and Wars were evil and at a massive scale, I just don't see how that can be spun any other way. How was this ever going to turn out any differently? Like I said the only reason we're so outraged is because we obliterated every other nation to the point that they'll never be able to rise up.
  - simonh 7y ago
    Responsibility for what? Either the people of Hong Kong are entitled to their opinions and freedoms, or they are not. I don't see why the actions of some dead British guys from 150 years ago have anything to do with whether that it true or not? Nobody is spinning the opium wars in any way. You are the one who brought up the topic.
    - tombh 7y ago
      Responsibility for justice. Perhaps legally nothing will ever happen, but without moral justice, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". The opinions and freedoms of the Chinese in 1842 were the same as Hong Kong's are now: to remain as they were and not become part of a different nation. So if you believe that Hong Kong deserves independence now, then you need to also believe that it deserved remaining Chinese then. I'm not an apologist for China. For example I strongly believe in the independence of Taiwan, they've clearly demonstrated through their own efforts that they are different to the mainland. They didn't have that sentiment force upon them by guns from a foreign military might.

by tombh 7y ago

wtdata 7y ago

What does that got to do with anything? Why do people keep bringing centuries old examples of the shortcomings of western civilization, to apologize for the very present disregards against human rights in many non-western countries? Specially in a case where the legacy that is being put in question is exactly the culture of respect for human rights, civil liberties and democracy brought by an Western nation, that is now under threat by an autocratic power: The central Government of China. There is a term coined specifically for that: Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

tombh 7y ago
My points about about native Americans and Australians could be construed as Whataboutism. But the Opium Wars aren't fodder in an equivalency argument, they are literally the very reason that HK even exists. Again, I must repeat, I do not at all condone China's lack of respect for human rights. All I am saying is that people need to know the actual context of the situation. If HK had come into being due to centuries of mutual, conflict-free trade, then I think this would be different situation. The fact is though that HK is the legacy of a sustained, coordinated, state-level, brutal and greedy campaign to extract as much money as possible from the Chinese.
- wtdata 7y ago
  > All I am saying is that people need to know the actual context of the situation. The actual context of the situation is that indeed, if the British hadn't controlled Hong Kong for a time this conflict wouldn't be happening. It wouldn't be happening, because people in Hong Kong wouldn't know what it is to live in a free democratic society as they lived in the last half a century of British "occupation", so they would just accept the human rights and personal freedoms violations of the autocratic government of China, without knowing any better.
  - tombh 7y ago
    I agree that free, democratic societies are better. I am in fact British, so I should know. Listen, I'm genuinely interested in how you and others justify the destiny of Hong Kong. So we're in agreement that democracy is better, and for example there's a very tenuous argument that the violence the West used in Iraq was necessitated by an existing autocratic regime. However the violence used by the UK to gain HK was utterly unprompted and motivated purely by economic greed. Democracy may well be the better choice for HK, but in what way does it deserve it? How can any argument in support of HK's democracy not also justify absolute violence against all other currently non-democratic states? It's unfortunate, but HK didn't come across democracy by its own struggle in the way most countries did. Such foundations are just inherently unstable, how can it possibly be any other way?

simonh 7y ago

>Why aren't we talking more about the history of HK's creation, namely the Opium wars? Because the people of Hong Kong have no responsibility for the Opium Wars perhaps? I'm not sure what you are actually suggesting. >The real "crime" here is that we're so morally bankrupt and out of touch with history that all we can do is watch and tweet hashtags. Ok, what do you want to do?

tombh 7y ago
Then who does have responsibility? Surely you're not suggesting that all is forgiven and forgotten once the perpetrators are dead? I'm suggesting that, figuratively, if you actually knew that you lived by a volcano, the emotional shock caused by its eruption could be tempered by some foresight. The Opium Trade and Wars were evil and at a massive scale, I just don't see how that can be spun any other way. How was this ever going to turn out any differently? Like I said the only reason we're so outraged is because we obliterated every other nation to the point that they'll never be able to rise up.
- simonh 7y ago
  Responsibility for what? Either the people of Hong Kong are entitled to their opinions and freedoms, or they are not. I don't see why the actions of some dead British guys from 150 years ago have anything to do with whether that it true or not? Nobody is spinning the opium wars in any way. You are the one who brought up the topic.
  - tombh 7y ago
    Responsibility for justice. Perhaps legally nothing will ever happen, but without moral justice, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". The opinions and freedoms of the Chinese in 1842 were the same as Hong Kong's are now: to remain as they were and not become part of a different nation. So if you believe that Hong Kong deserves independence now, then you need to also believe that it deserved remaining Chinese then. I'm not an apologist for China. For example I strongly believe in the independence of Taiwan, they've clearly demonstrated through their own efforts that they are different to the mainland. They didn't have that sentiment force upon them by guns from a foreign military might.