4 ms·

> Hong Kong was coerced and forced into this "nation" (China is not a nation nor a nation-state) using false promises, threats and lies about ethnical and cultu

> Hong Kong was coerced and forced into this "nation" (China is not a nation nor a nation-state) using false promises, threats and lies about ethnical and cultural similarity. This statement is full of factual inaccuracies, and historically incorrect lies. No, HK was not "coerced and forced" to return to China, it returned because of a joint agreement between China and UK. Yes, China is a nation and nation state. No there was no false promises, threats nor lies. Everything was said in advance, in the Joint Declaration before 1997, and further elaborated in the Basic Law. Both of these documents you can read online in Chinese and English and see this is the case. The lack of knowledge about the legal basis of HK is one of the ways people are tricked into believing crazy stuff like in this comment. But it seems nobody is content to argue about the actual factual historical legal documents. They want to make up crazy ideologies and fight as if that's true. No wonder there is so much nonsense about this issue. The statement also invokes some crazy nonsense about Chinese "ethnic and racial purity". China has quite a bit of diversity of ethnic groups, and southern Chinese from Pearl River Delta region, and HK and Macau look a bit different, and talk differently to peoples from the North, at least "in general". But there are many regional dialects and customs in China, having such does not make HKers or Canton people more unique than, say, Sichuan or Shanghai people. But that has no relevance to the question of national borders. And these statements sounds scarily like they take the idea of racial purity as some sort of geographic organizing principle. Would sort of be like Bostonian Irish wanting to secede to create a racially pure enclave in the Hamptons. It's odd how backward this comment is...there is racism, and forcing and coercion in HK's past, but from Brits who coerced China into giving up this region, using guns, in (what is literally called) "The Unequal Treaty" (of Nanking), and forced HKers to accept British rule, and often to work and live like slaves. Without any other info, these sorts of nonsense statements sound like guilty Brits trying to whitewash their colonial history with this ridiculous (and basically racist) claptrap, like in this comment. Even after 170+ years, are Westerns are still trying to meddle and tell Chinese people what is what? If that is so...it's path-etic. Surely the opposing arguments to the case laid out in the article are better than this? If you're reading this please don't embarrass yourself by being duped into supporting ahistorical (and frankly racist) nonsense like this. If you are opposed to HK and China shared trajectory, at least have the respect to think critically and thoughtfully about it, and have the courage to face the facts.

emteycz 6y ago
I am aware of all the legal documents you mentioned, including the Nanking treaty and the variously amended agreements from the 90's. You are correct that initially the Brits took the Hong Kong land and people by force from the Qing dynasty (not from "the Chinese", the Chinese were subjects of an absolutist monarchy - as compared to e.g. British subjects that had a much better position and being a British subject was even considered a privilege; note that later Hongkongers often considered it a privilege too). That doesn't change anything about the fact that modern Hongkongers are a distinct group of people that would prefer to have their own state - many Hongkongers of today would actually prefer a modern version of British protectorate, regardless of how unjustified and unwanted it was at the time of its original establishment. That the Hongkongers would prefer a completely foreign ruler is very telling about China. > Everything was said in advance, in the Joint Declaration before 1997, and further elaborated in the Basic Law. Both of these documents you can read online in Chinese and English and see this is the case. The lack of knowledge about the legal basis of HK is one of the ways people are tricked into believing crazy stuff like in this comment. But it seems nobody is content to argue about the actual factual historical legal documents. Were the people deciding, or was it decided for them? Did their government (the UK) act by itself or because it was threatened? Perhaps that is why we're ignoring the legal documents - and as always what two superpowers decided between them might have no relevance to the actual wishes of the people on that land, as you said yourself. Additionally, you should re-read the document - the Chinese state is blatantly violating the agreement that was to expire in 2047. > China is a nation and nation state. Did the people agree to it before they were "re-educated" in death camps? Do they even agree to it today? > China has quite a bit of diversity of ethnic groups, and southern Chinese from Pearl River Delta region, and HK and Macau look a bit different, and talk differently to peoples from the North, at least "in general". But there are many regional dialects and customs in China, having such does not make HKers or Canton people more unique than, say, Sichuan or Shanghai people. You're contradicting the previous statement. It has everything to do with national borders when these are the things that define the nation in the minds of the people we're talking about. I never said it makes Hongkongers more unique, I don't think it does. Secession of e.g. Sichuan from China is impossible at this point in time though and not that wanted by the people there, so no point in talking about them in this discussion. > And these statements sounds scarily like they take the idea of racial purity as some sort of geographic organizing principle. Heh, that is exactly what the Chinese Communist party is doing and what I am opposed to. They're building the concept of "the new Chinese person" which everybody should subscribe to, and they're using this new "Chinese nationality" as a justification of their rule over the land and people, acting in the name of "national security". They're trying to pull the same shit with Taiwan. I personally don't think nationality, ethnicity, culture etc is a good way of determining state borders, I don't even think borders are a good idea at all. In this case however the CCP is very successful in using these arguments to justify the integration of Hong Kong (and Taiwan), which is why I am here saying it's lies. Now I'm curious what do you have to say about Taiwan. Culturally, linguistically, ethnically etc it's very close to Hong Kong. Does that mean the Taiwanese are Chinese? What about Austrians, they're Germans in almost everything except the name, they actually considered themselves Germans just a hundred years ago - "Austria" is the name of the land while "Germans" is a ethnocultural group. How come? (Austria = Oesterreich = Eastern empire [of the Habsburgs])

emteycz 6y ago

I am aware of all the legal documents you mentioned, including the Nanking treaty and the variously amended agreements from the 90's. You are correct that initially the Brits took the Hong Kong land and people by force from the Qing dynasty (not from "the Chinese", the Chinese were subjects of an absolutist monarchy - as compared to e.g. British subjects that had a much better position and being a British subject was even considered a privilege; note that later Hongkongers often considered it a privilege too). That doesn't change anything about the fact that modern Hongkongers are a distinct group of people that would prefer to have their own state - many Hongkongers of today would actually prefer a modern version of British protectorate, regardless of how unjustified and unwanted it was at the time of its original establishment. That the Hongkongers would prefer a completely foreign ruler is very telling about China. > Everything was said in advance, in the Joint Declaration before 1997, and further elaborated in the Basic Law. Both of these documents you can read online in Chinese and English and see this is the case. The lack of knowledge about the legal basis of HK is one of the ways people are tricked into believing crazy stuff like in this comment. But it seems nobody is content to argue about the actual factual historical legal documents. Were the people deciding, or was it decided for them? Did their government (the UK) act by itself or because it was threatened? Perhaps that is why we're ignoring the legal documents - and as always what two superpowers decided between them might have no relevance to the actual wishes of the people on that land, as you said yourself. Additionally, you should re-read the document - the Chinese state is blatantly violating the agreement that was to expire in 2047. > China is a nation and nation state. Did the people agree to it before they were "re-educated" in death camps? Do they even agree to it today? > China has quite a bit of diversity of ethnic groups, and southern Chinese from Pearl River Delta region, and HK and Macau look a bit different, and talk differently to peoples from the North, at least "in general". But there are many regional dialects and customs in China, having such does not make HKers or Canton people more unique than, say, Sichuan or Shanghai people. You're contradicting the previous statement. It has everything to do with national borders when these are the things that define the nation in the minds of the people we're talking about. I never said it makes Hongkongers more unique, I don't think it does. Secession of e.g. Sichuan from China is impossible at this point in time though and not that wanted by the people there, so no point in talking about them in this discussion. > And these statements sounds scarily like they take the idea of racial purity as some sort of geographic organizing principle. Heh, that is exactly what the Chinese Communist party is doing and what I am opposed to. They're building the concept of "the new Chinese person" which everybody should subscribe to, and they're using this new "Chinese nationality" as a justification of their rule over the land and people, acting in the name of "national security". They're trying to pull the same shit with Taiwan. I personally don't think nationality, ethnicity, culture etc is a good way of determining state borders, I don't even think borders are a good idea at all. In this case however the CCP is very successful in using these arguments to justify the integration of Hong Kong (and Taiwan), which is why I am here saying it's lies. Now I'm curious what do you have to say about Taiwan. Culturally, linguistically, ethnically etc it's very close to Hong Kong. Does that mean the Taiwanese are Chinese? What about Austrians, they're Germans in almost everything except the name, they actually considered themselves Germans just a hundred years ago - "Austria" is the name of the land while "Germans" is a ethnocultural group. How come? (Austria = Oesterreich = Eastern empire [of the Habsburgs])