4 ms·

No, I think you are missing key details: Britain has already given up Hong Kong, i.e. (edit-->) according to how I understand you(<--edit) done the right thing

No, I think you are missing key details: Britain has already given up Hong Kong, i.e. (edit-->) according to how I understand you(<--edit) done the right thing there. The problem with China is they have broken the agreement on how they should rule Hong Kong during the first 50 years, isn't it?

arcticbull 5y ago
Giving up Hong Kong isn't necessarily the "right thing" - Hong Kong Island was ceded to the UK in perpetuity ages ago, in the 1840s. Kowloon and the New Territories were on a 99 year lease expiring in 1997. The UK giving up Hong Kong Island is as "right" as America ceding California to the Spaniards in the late 1990s IMO. Both defeats occurred around the same time. The people of Hong Kong were as much Chinese IMO as the Californians are Spanish. The really interesting one is Macau, which was Portuguese for almost 450 years - from 1557, but was ceded to China in 1999. So, for long before the United States even existed. It's a lot like ceding Roanoke colony to the UK in 1999. But worse, since they don't even speak the same language (Cantonese/Traditional and Portuguese vs. Mandarin). [edit] But yes, the next wrong was that the CCP broke their agreement regarding the autonomy of their Special Administrative Regions and the effective dissolution of the "One Country, Two Systems" model.
- wonnage 5y ago
  By this logic China ought to have invaded Taiwan ages ago because it's all peachy once you win
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    I don't think that would be much different than the UK invading say Gibraltar in 1704. I'm not going to advocate for it but if they did it, and held their possession for a few hundred years (content with what the capture did for their political posture) then yes, we'd be having a different conversation. Possession is 9/10ths of geopolitics. A few hundred years from now, the population of Taiwan would likely have a very different opinion of the matter. At that point I suspect there'd be quite a lot of resistance to breaking them away from the mainland too.
- euroderf 5y ago
  Late-breaking correction: "Two Countries, One System".
- dongping 5y ago
  > The people of Hong Kong were as much Chinese IMO as the Californians are Spanish. This is plainly wrong. The population distribution of Cantonese speakers shows that Hong Kong is only a small part of the Cantonese speaking region. [1] And although the situation apparently has changed, at 1997, 40 percent of Hong Kong people identified themselves as "Hong Konger and Chinese", together with the 20 percent identifying themselves solely as Chinese, makes up the majority. [2] I would think that at 1997, there were far less than 60 percent of Californian consider themselves as Spaniard at all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese#/media/File:Ping_and_Yue_dialect_map.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese#/media/File:Ping_and... [2] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/08/26/almost-nobody-in-hong-kong-under-30-identifies-as-chinese https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/08/26/almost-n...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dongping 5y ago
    Additional note: The data from a 2001 census shows that 94.9% of the population was ethnic Chinese. This ethnic classification may give you a different perspective, as this is not influenced by different political views. https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/EIndexbySubject.html?pcode=D5210101&scode=450 https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/EIndexbySubject.html?pcode=D5...
  - sampo 5y ago
    Majority of people in California can speak Spanish, and California is geographically part of a larger Spanish speaking area.
  - hong_kong 5y ago
    By your logic, Germany should be annexing Austria and parts of Switzerland.
- heavenlyblue 5y ago
  Can you clear up what you mean by "as America ceding California to the Spaniards in the late 1990s IMO"? Can't find anything related to that, just curious.
  - scbrg 5y ago
    It hasn't happened, and it's absurd to think that it would happen. That's the point.

arcticbull 5y ago

Giving up Hong Kong isn't necessarily the "right thing" - Hong Kong Island was ceded to the UK in perpetuity ages ago, in the 1840s. Kowloon and the New Territories were on a 99 year lease expiring in 1997. The UK giving up Hong Kong Island is as "right" as America ceding California to the Spaniards in the late 1990s IMO. Both defeats occurred around the same time. The people of Hong Kong were as much Chinese IMO as the Californians are Spanish. The really interesting one is Macau, which was Portuguese for almost 450 years - from 1557, but was ceded to China in 1999. So, for long before the United States even existed. It's a lot like ceding Roanoke colony to the UK in 1999. But worse, since they don't even speak the same language (Cantonese/Traditional and Portuguese vs. Mandarin). [edit] But yes, the next wrong was that the CCP broke their agreement regarding the autonomy of their Special Administrative Regions and the effective dissolution of the "One Country, Two Systems" model.

wonnage 5y ago
By this logic China ought to have invaded Taiwan ages ago because it's all peachy once you win
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- arcticbull 5y ago
  I don't think that would be much different than the UK invading say Gibraltar in 1704. I'm not going to advocate for it but if they did it, and held their possession for a few hundred years (content with what the capture did for their political posture) then yes, we'd be having a different conversation. Possession is 9/10ths of geopolitics. A few hundred years from now, the population of Taiwan would likely have a very different opinion of the matter. At that point I suspect there'd be quite a lot of resistance to breaking them away from the mainland too.
euroderf 5y ago
Late-breaking correction: "Two Countries, One System".
dongping 5y ago
> The people of Hong Kong were as much Chinese IMO as the Californians are Spanish. This is plainly wrong. The population distribution of Cantonese speakers shows that Hong Kong is only a small part of the Cantonese speaking region. [1] And although the situation apparently has changed, at 1997, 40 percent of Hong Kong people identified themselves as "Hong Konger and Chinese", together with the 20 percent identifying themselves solely as Chinese, makes up the majority. [2] I would think that at 1997, there were far less than 60 percent of Californian consider themselves as Spaniard at all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese#/media/File:Ping_and_Yue_dialect_map.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese#/media/File:Ping_and... [2] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/08/26/almost-nobody-in-hong-kong-under-30-identifies-as-chinese https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/08/26/almost-n...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dongping 5y ago
  Additional note: The data from a 2001 census shows that 94.9% of the population was ethnic Chinese. This ethnic classification may give you a different perspective, as this is not influenced by different political views. https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/EIndexbySubject.html?pcode=D5210101&scode=450 https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/EIndexbySubject.html?pcode=D5...
- sampo 5y ago
  Majority of people in California can speak Spanish, and California is geographically part of a larger Spanish speaking area.
- hong_kong 5y ago
  By your logic, Germany should be annexing Austria and parts of Switzerland.
heavenlyblue 5y ago
Can you clear up what you mean by "as America ceding California to the Spaniards in the late 1990s IMO"? Can't find anything related to that, just curious.
- scbrg 5y ago
  It hasn't happened, and it's absurd to think that it would happen. That's the point.