3 ms·

That's a great way to put it. In the US we describe things as some "freedom vs communism" conflict. I kind of had that point of view until I went to school in

That's a great way to put it. In the US we describe things as some "freedom vs communism" conflict. I kind of had that point of view until I went to school in Hong Kong, long ago. I found that in general the Chinese in HK had more sympathy or patriotism for China then Europe (particularly England!) or the US. They may not have wanted to be part of the Chinese mainland government as it was, but they were very supportive of a strong China. They felt very aggrieved about how Western Powers had treated China in the past. I think the problem is-- thinking about my friends in Hong Kong-- is that it is hard to find a third way and that may not be stable in the long run.

throwaway2037 3y ago
Regardless of your observed relative sympathy towards China versus UK/US, how do you explain the multi-year protests against the proposed security law? Maybe the sympathy isn't so strong after all. Mostly, people didn't want to lose their freedom. They could clearly see the security law was the "beginning of the end" for their democratic freedoms, include free speech, right to protest, and voting for their choice of leaders (excluding CEO).
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  He explained. Hongkong is a part of China that was seized by foreigners for 150 years. Inhabitants are Chinese in China. Just look at HK movies that often depict Chinese' struggle against Europeans with the 'white guys' usually the bad guys. But that obviously does not mean that they would necessarily support the communist party or agree to relinquish their (very new) rights. This is the same everywhere. People may oppose the government but it does not imply that they are not belonging to their country. Obviously. It's quite extraordinary to see the depth of the anti-China narrative. Only them can be forcibly invaded and still be the bad guys when they peacefully recover their territory.

throwaway2037 3y ago

Regardless of your observed relative sympathy towards China versus UK/US, how do you explain the multi-year protests against the proposed security law? Maybe the sympathy isn't so strong after all. Mostly, people didn't want to lose their freedom. They could clearly see the security law was the "beginning of the end" for their democratic freedoms, include free speech, right to protest, and voting for their choice of leaders (excluding CEO).

mytailorisrich 3y ago
He explained. Hongkong is a part of China that was seized by foreigners for 150 years. Inhabitants are Chinese in China. Just look at HK movies that often depict Chinese' struggle against Europeans with the 'white guys' usually the bad guys. But that obviously does not mean that they would necessarily support the communist party or agree to relinquish their (very new) rights. This is the same everywhere. People may oppose the government but it does not imply that they are not belonging to their country. Obviously. It's quite extraordinary to see the depth of the anti-China narrative. Only them can be forcibly invaded and still be the bad guys when they peacefully recover their territory.