7 ms·

I am a US citizen who resided in HK for 5 years, until this last December. I think Hong Kongers' efforts to resist increasing Chinese encroachment, while admir

I am a US citizen who resided in HK for 5 years, until this last December. I think Hong Kongers' efforts to resist increasing Chinese encroachment, while admirable, are probably futile. They are simply too British. British culture is completely incompatible with any kind of successful resistance against a hostile government. They are too scared of weapons and (justified, defensive) violence to make Chinese occupation unviable. The absolute most extreme behavior we saw from protestors was thrown bricks and the occasional molotov cocktail. Almost none of the destruction was targeted at Chinese government facilities in HK - instead they went after easy HK-controlled targets like road equipment and the airport. This is not a winning strategy.

runawaybottle 6y ago
Non violent, persistent, civil disobedience has worked in modern history. It just takes serious dedication, but the current world has a lot more tools in place to broadcast the narrative. Those Hong Kong protests can never stop.
- petre 6y ago
  Not against the CCP. Tank man was allegedy executed by firing squad two weeks after the event.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Allegedly, though. If protest didn't matter at all, it wouldn't be merely alleged; the CCP would just publicly say "yeah we shot him and we'll shoot you next if you bug us about it".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nickik 6y ago
  > Non violent, persistent, civil disobedience has worked in modern history. Against the British empire in places that Britain didn't actually make much money anymore.
  - runawaybottle 6y ago
    In America with Civil Rights also.
    - twoheadedboy 6y ago
      Because America is a Democracy. Non violent protests changed people's minds and those people ultimately decide the laws. Won't work in China. China is totalitarian. The government gets what it wants regardless of public opinion. And it will squash any opinion it doesn't like before it spreads.
    - mythrwy 6y ago
      That worked because the federal government had guns and Civil Rights had widespread support in much of the rest of the country. History is probably full of deaths of nonviolent (and violent) resisters.
- plutonorm 6y ago
  It won't work against a totalitarian government.
  - hker 6y ago
    If the totalitarian government could survive a large scale joblessness or recession, comparable to the one US might be experiencing now. Democratic regime may survive bad economic times by transitioning of power if needed, but less so for a totalitarian government. Especially CCP got a lot of its legitimacy from the perceived fast economic growth, it will be problematic if their growth engine halts.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
hker 6y ago
Yes, what’s happening on the street (the protests) and in the legislative council (the voting) may not be enough to resist China, but Hong Kong people recently are doing more, which is what prompted the harsh response from China, including the proposed changes outlined in this news article. Hong Kong people realized that they could “vote” (express their opinions) by choosing what businesses they support: they could support businesses who support the protest. This economic circle [1] eventually could resist the control from China. This could be substantial when Chinese economy is not looking good, and when some businesses care about overseas market (think of the trade tariffs and the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019). [1]: https://thediplomat.com/2020/05/how-the-yellow-economic-circle-can-revolutionize-hong-kong/ https://thediplomat.com/2020/05/how-the-yellow-economic-circ...
scottLobster 6y ago
To be fair I don't think they have a winning strategy available, so they're making the strongest move they can. Armed insurrection of the type you're describing would just bring the PLA jackboots down on Hong Kong, and the rebels will join the Uyghurs in the camps. Sure there'd be some international backlash, but between backlash and losing Hong Kong, the CCP will choose the backlash. It's an existential issue for them. The only way armed insurrection works is by creating a situation painful enough that, over time (years or decades), the leadership of the occupying force starts asking if the cost is worth it. The current CCP will always answer yes to that question.
theseadroid 6y ago
Non violent actions such as strikes brought us many human rights improvements such as 40 hour week and safety and health regulations. Many societies reformed after their citizens striked extensively. I'm curious why there's no sweeping strikes in Hong Kong yet?
- mdorazio 6y ago
  Can you provide an example of a time peaceful strikes worked against a well-organized, massive, and authoritarian government like the CCP? I don't think comparing wins in civil rights in Western democracies is a good basis for policy here.
  - theseadroid 6y ago
    The non violence movement in India against Imperial Britain? You can argue the particularity of every historical event but to me striking is one of the immediately reachable weapon against CCP that is not employed. With the same logic we can say protesting is not effective against CCP yet ppl still do it?
    - jerf 6y ago
      Imperial Britain is still not China of today. There are some cultures that will simply read your nonviolence as weakness and stomp over you. Our modern tendency to compete on who can most hyperbolically denounce Western Imperialism strips us of any ability to calibrate between cultures. Do you know what Imperial Rome would have done to the nonviolent Indian revolt? They'd have executed it at its infancy and it would be a historical footnote. They wouldn't have even waited for it to become a big movement; the death penalty would have been used early and often. To some degree, even as entertainment. My read on China is closer to first-century Rome than 20th century Britain. YMMV.
      - theseadroid 6y ago
        And a single city with guns would be able to topple Rome with modern weaponry? To be clear, neither I or you are certain what the majority of HKers want to trade for democracy. Realistically if they want democracy so bad, what else they can do other than the protesting they are doing? Long term striking seems to be something they can do TODAY, RIGHT NOW. Equiped with weapons or not, one of the bet they have to make is that the international community would not sit idlely while many HKers get killed.
ezVoodoo 6y ago
Scared of weapon and violence? LMAO. How does it feel to be a liar? Tell us the videos here show no violence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj0XUN7hJXY&list=PLoR2eeftukChWm-zphzaxGNrGRTF6dJkX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj0XUN7hJXY&list=PLoR2eeftuk... And they don't hesitate to beat up a girl either. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I55gRzacm-0&list=PLoR2eeftukChWm-zphzaxGNrGRTF6dJkX&index=3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I55gRzacm-0&list=PLoR2eeftuk...
- dang 6y ago
  This comment breaks the site guidelines. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here?
tensor 6y ago
I think US people are incredibly naive in thinking that they are going to oppose government military action with their personal guns. It won't work, the only difference will be many more dead.
- pnako 6y ago
  Why not? It worked in Vietnam, it worked in Afghanistan. Guns work. "Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun", said Mao.
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    It worked in the US, even without shooting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff) (independent of whether you think the Bundys were in the right, the fact is, armed ranchers did deter armed BLM intervention, basically indefinitely)
- madengr 6y ago
  Well, many more dead (on both sides) is the point.
  - ng12 6y ago
    Grim but true. It's the nuclear option: force the government to order their soldiers to go to war against the citizenry.
- ikerdanzel 6y ago
  US military are at the mercy of their population. Think Nazi Germans with their superweapons vs punny Russians. Germans east front were utterly destroyed that it was preferably to surrender to West as fast as possible even though it came at a huge toll on Russians side. American military at most top to 1-2 millions which is only about 1-2% of their population. Whatever weapons that US military got, they can be easily commandeered by the population should it turn evil like Nazi. A lot of ex-veterans including ex-special forces are part of population who are very well verse with military tactics. Unfortunately this is uncommon in Europe or Asia side. If you reside in this places, then you pretty much have not seen some US private citizen collections that can rival 3rd world armies. Remember USA was beaten by Vietnamese. What makes you think their own citizens can't keep them in check? The parents who their children are military are part of population too. These are what most governments are scared of and ban weapons. The intention for these governments are never for the safety of their population but their own. USA people are way more smarter than most people giving credit for. They known this concept by inventing a written document that guarantees 1st and 2nd. Even UK dares not to do this even though most early Americans originate from there.
carapace 6y ago
> British culture is completely incompatible with any kind of successful resistance against a hostile government. Wat? I mean, do you count the Revolution? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  The American revolution would be like some Chinese colonists refusing to pay back infra debt in Africa. And the US would have to have the guts to send some Rochambeaus and Lafayettes to the Chinese colonies. Kinda a stretch comparison. But I would like it in doing so the US got mad broke and then we had a real revolution.
jbay808 6y ago
Undoubtedly, the main reason Gandhi failed to achieve any substantial strides toward Indian independence was because he was too hesitant to deploy real guns and firepower.
- majewsky 6y ago
  (Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on British/Indian/Chinese history/politics.) As far as I know, Gandhi's strategy worked because the British public eventually couldn't take it anymore that their military was gunning down peaceful protesters. That's where the analogy fails: Given the circumstances, I don't see the mainland Chinese public standing up for HK's rights any time soon.
  - jbay808 6y ago
    I think it was not only the British public, but also their international peers. The presence of international reporters put a lot of pressure on Britain. By the same token, the HK protesters' strongest asset is the international perception that they are passionate but peaceful protests, and it's why China is so eager to label them as riots. If they were to employ significant violence - say, start shooting cops - it gives China infinite license to crack down with disproportionate power. And they have that power available (see the convoys of military trucks that they moved to the border, enough to stretch beyond the horizon). That's why China's strongest strategy is to infiltrate the protesters and provoke violence, or just dress up soldiers as protesters and blow up some replaceable infrastructure and blame them for it. Then roll in the army in uniform in response, lock the city down, and remove anyone who causes trouble, in the name of public safety. Having widespread armaments throughout HK does not play in the favour of the public here. It makes that violence much easier to provoke, and legitimizes any response. China isn't afraid to lose soldiers and cops to bullets, they're afraid of looking like the bad guys (the optics of another Tienanmen square).
jldugger 6y ago
> They are simply too British. It worked for the Americans somehow. edit: and for that matter, it almost worked for cromwell.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  Love the Cromwell reference! And your main response is on-point, as well. However, when I read that Dennis Kwok, a pro-democracy lawmaker, said "This is a complete and total surprise and I think it means the end of one country, two systems" [my emphasis], I hope he is saying this rhetorically, rather than as an expression of being blindsided by the turn of events.
lawrenceyan 6y ago
Kind of a weird take. What does being British have to do with being able to successfully protest?

runawaybottle 6y ago

Non violent, persistent, civil disobedience has worked in modern history. It just takes serious dedication, but the current world has a lot more tools in place to broadcast the narrative. Those Hong Kong protests can never stop.

petre 6y ago
Not against the CCP. Tank man was allegedy executed by firing squad two weeks after the event.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Allegedly, though. If protest didn't matter at all, it wouldn't be merely alleged; the CCP would just publicly say "yeah we shot him and we'll shoot you next if you bug us about it".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nickik 6y ago
> Non violent, persistent, civil disobedience has worked in modern history. Against the British empire in places that Britain didn't actually make much money anymore.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  In America with Civil Rights also.
  - twoheadedboy 6y ago
    Because America is a Democracy. Non violent protests changed people's minds and those people ultimately decide the laws. Won't work in China. China is totalitarian. The government gets what it wants regardless of public opinion. And it will squash any opinion it doesn't like before it spreads.
  - mythrwy 6y ago
    That worked because the federal government had guns and Civil Rights had widespread support in much of the rest of the country. History is probably full of deaths of nonviolent (and violent) resisters.
plutonorm 6y ago
It won't work against a totalitarian government.
- hker 6y ago
  If the totalitarian government could survive a large scale joblessness or recession, comparable to the one US might be experiencing now. Democratic regime may survive bad economic times by transitioning of power if needed, but less so for a totalitarian government. Especially CCP got a lot of its legitimacy from the perceived fast economic growth, it will be problematic if their growth engine halts.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

hker 6y ago

Yes, what’s happening on the street (the protests) and in the legislative council (the voting) may not be enough to resist China, but Hong Kong people recently are doing more, which is what prompted the harsh response from China, including the proposed changes outlined in this news article. Hong Kong people realized that they could “vote” (express their opinions) by choosing what businesses they support: they could support businesses who support the protest. This economic circle [1] eventually could resist the control from China. This could be substantial when Chinese economy is not looking good, and when some businesses care about overseas market (think of the trade tariffs and the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019). [1]: https://thediplomat.com/2020/05/how-the-yellow-economic-circle-can-revolutionize-hong-kong/ https://thediplomat.com/2020/05/how-the-yellow-economic-circ...

scottLobster 6y ago

To be fair I don't think they have a winning strategy available, so they're making the strongest move they can. Armed insurrection of the type you're describing would just bring the PLA jackboots down on Hong Kong, and the rebels will join the Uyghurs in the camps. Sure there'd be some international backlash, but between backlash and losing Hong Kong, the CCP will choose the backlash. It's an existential issue for them. The only way armed insurrection works is by creating a situation painful enough that, over time (years or decades), the leadership of the occupying force starts asking if the cost is worth it. The current CCP will always answer yes to that question.

theseadroid 6y ago

Non violent actions such as strikes brought us many human rights improvements such as 40 hour week and safety and health regulations. Many societies reformed after their citizens striked extensively. I'm curious why there's no sweeping strikes in Hong Kong yet?

mdorazio 6y ago
Can you provide an example of a time peaceful strikes worked against a well-organized, massive, and authoritarian government like the CCP? I don't think comparing wins in civil rights in Western democracies is a good basis for policy here.
- theseadroid 6y ago
  The non violence movement in India against Imperial Britain? You can argue the particularity of every historical event but to me striking is one of the immediately reachable weapon against CCP that is not employed. With the same logic we can say protesting is not effective against CCP yet ppl still do it?
  - jerf 6y ago
    Imperial Britain is still not China of today. There are some cultures that will simply read your nonviolence as weakness and stomp over you. Our modern tendency to compete on who can most hyperbolically denounce Western Imperialism strips us of any ability to calibrate between cultures. Do you know what Imperial Rome would have done to the nonviolent Indian revolt? They'd have executed it at its infancy and it would be a historical footnote. They wouldn't have even waited for it to become a big movement; the death penalty would have been used early and often. To some degree, even as entertainment. My read on China is closer to first-century Rome than 20th century Britain. YMMV.
    - theseadroid 6y ago
      And a single city with guns would be able to topple Rome with modern weaponry? To be clear, neither I or you are certain what the majority of HKers want to trade for democracy. Realistically if they want democracy so bad, what else they can do other than the protesting they are doing? Long term striking seems to be something they can do TODAY, RIGHT NOW. Equiped with weapons or not, one of the bet they have to make is that the international community would not sit idlely while many HKers get killed.

ezVoodoo 6y ago

Scared of weapon and violence? LMAO. How does it feel to be a liar? Tell us the videos here show no violence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj0XUN7hJXY&list=PLoR2eeftukChWm-zphzaxGNrGRTF6dJkX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj0XUN7hJXY&list=PLoR2eeftuk... And they don't hesitate to beat up a girl either. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I55gRzacm-0&list=PLoR2eeftukChWm-zphzaxGNrGRTF6dJkX&index=3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I55gRzacm-0&list=PLoR2eeftuk...

dang 6y ago
This comment breaks the site guidelines. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here?

tensor 6y ago

I think US people are incredibly naive in thinking that they are going to oppose government military action with their personal guns. It won't work, the only difference will be many more dead.

pnako 6y ago
Why not? It worked in Vietnam, it worked in Afghanistan. Guns work. "Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun", said Mao.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  It worked in the US, even without shooting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff) (independent of whether you think the Bundys were in the right, the fact is, armed ranchers did deter armed BLM intervention, basically indefinitely)
madengr 6y ago
Well, many more dead (on both sides) is the point.
- ng12 6y ago
  Grim but true. It's the nuclear option: force the government to order their soldiers to go to war against the citizenry.
ikerdanzel 6y ago
US military are at the mercy of their population. Think Nazi Germans with their superweapons vs punny Russians. Germans east front were utterly destroyed that it was preferably to surrender to West as fast as possible even though it came at a huge toll on Russians side. American military at most top to 1-2 millions which is only about 1-2% of their population. Whatever weapons that US military got, they can be easily commandeered by the population should it turn evil like Nazi. A lot of ex-veterans including ex-special forces are part of population who are very well verse with military tactics. Unfortunately this is uncommon in Europe or Asia side. If you reside in this places, then you pretty much have not seen some US private citizen collections that can rival 3rd world armies. Remember USA was beaten by Vietnamese. What makes you think their own citizens can't keep them in check? The parents who their children are military are part of population too. These are what most governments are scared of and ban weapons. The intention for these governments are never for the safety of their population but their own. USA people are way more smarter than most people giving credit for. They known this concept by inventing a written document that guarantees 1st and 2nd. Even UK dares not to do this even though most early Americans originate from there.

carapace 6y ago

> British culture is completely incompatible with any kind of successful resistance against a hostile government. Wat? I mean, do you count the Revolution? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

Ericson2314 6y ago
The American revolution would be like some Chinese colonists refusing to pay back infra debt in Africa. And the US would have to have the guts to send some Rochambeaus and Lafayettes to the Chinese colonies. Kinda a stretch comparison. But I would like it in doing so the US got mad broke and then we had a real revolution.

jbay808 6y ago

Undoubtedly, the main reason Gandhi failed to achieve any substantial strides toward Indian independence was because he was too hesitant to deploy real guns and firepower.

majewsky 6y ago
(Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on British/Indian/Chinese history/politics.) As far as I know, Gandhi's strategy worked because the British public eventually couldn't take it anymore that their military was gunning down peaceful protesters. That's where the analogy fails: Given the circumstances, I don't see the mainland Chinese public standing up for HK's rights any time soon.
- jbay808 6y ago
  I think it was not only the British public, but also their international peers. The presence of international reporters put a lot of pressure on Britain. By the same token, the HK protesters' strongest asset is the international perception that they are passionate but peaceful protests, and it's why China is so eager to label them as riots. If they were to employ significant violence - say, start shooting cops - it gives China infinite license to crack down with disproportionate power. And they have that power available (see the convoys of military trucks that they moved to the border, enough to stretch beyond the horizon). That's why China's strongest strategy is to infiltrate the protesters and provoke violence, or just dress up soldiers as protesters and blow up some replaceable infrastructure and blame them for it. Then roll in the army in uniform in response, lock the city down, and remove anyone who causes trouble, in the name of public safety. Having widespread armaments throughout HK does not play in the favour of the public here. It makes that violence much easier to provoke, and legitimizes any response. China isn't afraid to lose soldiers and cops to bullets, they're afraid of looking like the bad guys (the optics of another Tienanmen square).

jldugger 6y ago

> They are simply too British. It worked for the Americans somehow. edit: and for that matter, it almost worked for cromwell.

mannykannot 6y ago
Love the Cromwell reference! And your main response is on-point, as well. However, when I read that Dennis Kwok, a pro-democracy lawmaker, said "This is a complete and total surprise and I think it means the end of one country, two systems" [my emphasis], I hope he is saying this rhetorically, rather than as an expression of being blindsided by the turn of events.

lawrenceyan 6y ago

Kind of a weird take. What does being British have to do with being able to successfully protest?