4 ms·
> they gambled on the fact that they expected a very different future for China. Hong Kong was always going to return to China in 1997 due to a British-China d
by 99chrisbard 7y ago
> they gambled on the fact that they expected a very different future for China.
Hong Kong was always going to return to China in 1997 due to a British-China deal. There's no way for HK to NOT return to China.
- chadcmulligan 7y agoIsn't that up to the people of HK?
- khuey 7y agoShort of an actual revolution no.
- chadcmulligan 7y agothat to is up to the people of HK, if thats what it takes
- brokensegue 7y agoby that argument everything is always "up the people". "well if they don't like $X they can always revolt." revolt isn't a very flexible means of expressing the wills of the people.
- chadcmulligan 7y agoBut if the people in power use force to prevent a legitimate discussion then the only avenue left is revolution. There is no legitimate way for the people to involve in discussion, the HK protesters want democracy, the Chinese government doesn't. What alternative do the HK citizens have apart from not be part of China? Edit: further there is no way to express dissent in China, the HKers are taking their life in their hands by expressing dissent. I can think of no time this happens in the west.
- khuey 7y ago"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
- beerandt 7y agoTechnically the Hong Kong lease was perpetual, only the new territories lease expired in 97. But the British didn't want to deal with another partitioned colony, so they just gave up the whole thing.