5 ms·

>What we do know is that Britain violently subjugated HK, but before they left they liberalized the place to a greater degree than the CCP would have... Funny

>What we do know is that Britain violently subjugated HK, but before they left they liberalized the place to a greater degree than the CCP would have... Funny how Britain was happy to rule over Hong Kong for centuries without introducing democratic reform and then suddenly 'liberalised' things only when they were on the point of handing HK back to China. Almost as if it was done with precisely the intent of leaving the Chinese with as much of a hot potato as possible. They don't call it "Perfidious Albion" for nothing!

free_rms 6y ago
Finally, someone gets it.
mannykannot 6y ago
> Funny how Britain was happy to rule over Hong Kong for centuries... Britain first raised its flag over Hong Kong island in 1842. The New Territories, without which Hong Kong is not a viable independent entity, were leased to Britain under a 99-year lease in 1898. This was a consequence of one of the worst aspects of colonial Britain, the Opium wars, but, as hker points out [1], since the 1960s Britain has attempted to democratize Hong Kong, but was constrained by China's realistic threat of invasion. There's not much credit to any side here, but let's at least get the history right. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23260302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23260302
- av_engr 6y ago
  Agree on the part about China threatening since the 60s. If I recall correctly, there was a wave of movement on British Colonies raising referendum on independence from Britain since the 60s ? Hong Kong did not earn that right due to Communist China's threat on "liberating" Hong Kong if it was given independence.
  - Normille 6y ago
    Can you cite any documentary evidence for these Chinese threats, dating back to the 1960s? I'm not saying you're wrong but China in the 1960s was an unindustrialised, agrarian 3rd-world country which was barely able to feed its own people. I suspect Britain [a rich, industrialised, nuclear-armed member of NATO] would have laughed in their face, if China had issued any threats. We shouldn't fall into the trap of looking at the might & modernity of China today and thinking t'was ever thus. I'm old enough to remember when news footage from China would show countless thousands of people, clad in denim boiler suits, riding bicycles through Peking, with nary a car to be seen. [ASIDE: Ironic that moving towards vehicle-free cities with a cycling populace is now seen as aspirational and a sign of progress whereas, back then, it was an indicator of how backward China was]
    - mannykannot 6y ago
      Go to the post I linked to for more evidence. Furthermore, remember that it was China's intervention in Korea in the early 1950s that almost overran the US forces in Korea, and forced a negotiated settlement with the creation of two Koreas. NATO is irrelevant, as that was an alliance for the defence of Western Europe, not small remnants of Britain's colonies. NATO was not about to go to war with China then, any more than it involved itself in Korea. And what would Britain do with its nukes? Nothing more than the US did in Korea and Viet Nam. If Britain were to even threaten their use, it would seriously damage its relationship with the USA, by creating a precedent that the USSR (and, by 1964, a nuclear China) could invoke at any time. Remember what happened over Suez, which did not even go as far as a nuclear threat. Even if Britain halted an initial invasion, China would still be there, on the border of Hong Kong, for as long as the British could afford to stay (or until 1997, if it came to that, which it would not.) None of this analysis is dependent on "looking at the might & modernity of China today and thinking t'was ever thus."
    - av_engr 6y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-hong-kong-elections-in-50s.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_independence#Colonial_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_independence#Colonia... In the 60s/70s China was in bad terms with Soviet, US/UK saw the benefit of having China as "Allies". Thus, HK kind of became the scapegoat.

free_rms 6y ago

Finally, someone gets it.

mannykannot 6y ago

> Funny how Britain was happy to rule over Hong Kong for centuries... Britain first raised its flag over Hong Kong island in 1842. The New Territories, without which Hong Kong is not a viable independent entity, were leased to Britain under a 99-year lease in 1898. This was a consequence of one of the worst aspects of colonial Britain, the Opium wars, but, as hker points out [1], since the 1960s Britain has attempted to democratize Hong Kong, but was constrained by China's realistic threat of invasion. There's not much credit to any side here, but let's at least get the history right. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23260302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23260302

av_engr 6y ago
Agree on the part about China threatening since the 60s. If I recall correctly, there was a wave of movement on British Colonies raising referendum on independence from Britain since the 60s ? Hong Kong did not earn that right due to Communist China's threat on "liberating" Hong Kong if it was given independence.
- Normille 6y ago
  Can you cite any documentary evidence for these Chinese threats, dating back to the 1960s? I'm not saying you're wrong but China in the 1960s was an unindustrialised, agrarian 3rd-world country which was barely able to feed its own people. I suspect Britain [a rich, industrialised, nuclear-armed member of NATO] would have laughed in their face, if China had issued any threats. We shouldn't fall into the trap of looking at the might & modernity of China today and thinking t'was ever thus. I'm old enough to remember when news footage from China would show countless thousands of people, clad in denim boiler suits, riding bicycles through Peking, with nary a car to be seen. [ASIDE: Ironic that moving towards vehicle-free cities with a cycling populace is now seen as aspirational and a sign of progress whereas, back then, it was an indicator of how backward China was]
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    Go to the post I linked to for more evidence. Furthermore, remember that it was China's intervention in Korea in the early 1950s that almost overran the US forces in Korea, and forced a negotiated settlement with the creation of two Koreas. NATO is irrelevant, as that was an alliance for the defence of Western Europe, not small remnants of Britain's colonies. NATO was not about to go to war with China then, any more than it involved itself in Korea. And what would Britain do with its nukes? Nothing more than the US did in Korea and Viet Nam. If Britain were to even threaten their use, it would seriously damage its relationship with the USA, by creating a precedent that the USSR (and, by 1964, a nuclear China) could invoke at any time. Remember what happened over Suez, which did not even go as far as a nuclear threat. Even if Britain halted an initial invasion, China would still be there, on the border of Hong Kong, for as long as the British could afford to stay (or until 1997, if it came to that, which it would not.) None of this analysis is dependent on "looking at the might & modernity of China today and thinking t'was ever thus."
  - av_engr 6y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-hong-kong-elections-in-50s.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_independence#Colonial_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_independence#Colonia... In the 60s/70s China was in bad terms with Soviet, US/UK saw the benefit of having China as "Allies". Thus, HK kind of became the scapegoat.