20
votes
Chinese-British citizen posts detailed explanation of reasoning behind Chinese views on Hong Kong/China/Blizzard situation
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- A Chinese take on this...
- Authors
- gamerluke13
- Word count
- 2227 words
as someone who grew up in Hong Kong and an american born chinese, i appreciate the OP on that post sharing his views. But a lot of what he said shows a lot of bias and misinformation, not sure if it's intentional due to how he simplifies a lot of the complex issues and history by just saying "google it". I also disagree with most of what he claims. Especially regarding the companies. When the hand over happened, most people were scared of what will happen to hong kong. Though those who wish that Hong Kong wouldn't go back to China were too scared to say anything. They don't want to be labeled as traitors to their own race especially with how the Brits obtained Hong Kong in the first place.
Most people in Hong Kong knows independence isn't a reality. Hong Kong has no way of self sustaining, they even get their fresh water supply from the pearl river from China during the colonial days. The media is just framing it this way. I'm not sure whether its intentional or not to make the protesters look bad. What people in Hong Kong want is stability and the status quo with the continuation of one country two system. China wants Hong Kong to assimilate, but they got impatient and couldn't wait until 50 years promise has passed. It probably has something to do with more and more youths in Hong Kong do not identify themselves as Chinese.
this statement in itself should show you what kinda bias he has.
For those who don't want to go to Reddit:
Quoted post
The discussion over there isn't actually all that bad though as far as Reddit goes. There are several good and detailed comments to be found too, some of which I've quoted below:
Other notable posts
Hong Konger detailing protest events and why it all occurred
Australian working on jurisprudence essay regarding HK situation explains reasons for Western views of China as totalitarian to OP
Further explanation of Chinese feelings regarding family/unity
Update: OP has made a general reply as a top-level comment on the thread, responding primarily about Chinese gov't totalitarianism:
Second post
Like has been mentioned this post is great for insight into a certain mindset but, though politely and thoughtfully put, it falls far short of anything approaching human decency and sympathy. This isn't the UK vs China, China's current actions are not justified by the "century of humiliation", and... you know what? Responding over and over to the never-ending torrent of pro-CCP arguments is tiring and soul crushing so let's take this to bullet-points and turn up the snark:
This isn't the UK vs China. Come on now. The UK is embroiled in their own mess and as far as I know there's no chance of them doing the one thing Hong Kongers have asked of them, i.e. giving full UK citizenship to Hong Kongers born before the handover. They've made some calls for support, sure, but by that measure they've hardly done more than some rando in a comment section. Since 1997 this has been about Hong Kong and Beijing.
"Century of humiliation!" Oh fuck off with that. Lots of countries have suffered some period of "humiliation" at the hands of exploitative neighbours or empires and many have gotten over it because the alternative is an endless cycle of hatred and reprisal. And, more to the point, how many authoritarian regimes have used that "humiliation" and their subsequent "return to greatness" to justify their own rule and all of their actions?
"Hong Kong is and always has been a part of China!" Okay, what is Hong Kong? Is it the land under your feet or is it the city and its people? Because when the territory of Hong Kong was stolen (yeah, let's not mince words here) there was no city of several million there. The city and its people and its culture as we know it today came about when it was under colonial occupation and its residents had no say when they were handed over to another colonial power. (Yes, China's a colonial power too.) So the land (all 0.35 Rhode Islands worth of it!) belonged to China but the people and the city never did until 1997. When people say China owns Hong Kong they mean it used to own the land so now it should own the people. Yeah, owning people, another concept that can be fucked off about by anyone who advocates it.
Uh, more than zero? Like I don't have an exact number but it's not hard to think of recent examples. Tibet was independent, Xinjiang was independent (briefly, to be fair). They certainly didn't take a vote before they were annexed. China fought a war with Vietnam. China fought tooth and nail to "liberate" North Korea and have propped them up ever since. There have been border skirmishes with India. War with the Soviet Union looked possible for a while there. And, let's not forget the constant threats to invade and annex Taiwan, an independent and democratic nation with the misfortune of sharing a complex history with China. Notice a common theme here, though: when China invades its neighbours (or threatens to) it's not framed as "China invading its neighbours", no, of course not. The nationalists and apologists will tell you that China is simply liberating its rightful territory. So yeah, China has never invaded anything as long as you accept the same imperialist/colonial excuses about how all the places they invaded were their rightful territory or vassals anyway.
"China's territorial integrity!" The holy-of-holies must-not-be-violated justification and motivation that makes everything China does a-okay. Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, the South China Sea? All justified because look at this Qing era map! Except (even leaving aside arguments about how this is a poor justification anyway and "we owned that land 200 years ago" is an attitude which will/has led to endless war and misery) even the nationalists are hypocrites on this one. You know what else is on all those Qing empire maps? Mongolia, large parts of far eastern Russia, and parts of Kazakhstan. But how often do you hear Chinese nationalists beating their chests about Russia-occupied Manchuria? Never, because the CCP sees no geopolitical advantage in trying to get those territories "back". So how can "China's historical territorial integrity must be recovered and maintained something something century of humiliation" work as a justification when it's not even followed by those who argue it? Easy, because all that nationalistic rhetoric is post hoc justification for what the CCP wants anyway.
Because of a thousands year history of conquest and assimilation that continues today. Differences in history, culture, language, ethnicity, and even nationality among different peoples within China's borders have been minimized, erased, or repressed. I'm sure if Europe were a single state under Rome or Germany or whoever we'd all be told about how homogeneous they are too. And really, is this a justification anything? "We're all a big happy family, and if one family member doesn't do what the family patriarch says they'll be tortured until they do! Because that's what love is!" (And, yeah, HK protesters are being tortured in custody.)
There's a lot more to say (I feel like I could write a goddamn book on this subject, with chapter titles like "Asshole, you live in a free and democratic nation but you support torture and oppression elsewhere to protect your fragile pride" and "Whataboutism: why more than one thing can be bad at once and how both can be criticized by anyone") but I want to end by saying something nice. You know what? You might not guess it from my comment so far but I actually really like China and support it 100%. Just, I support it in the same way as a Bush/Trump hating American or westerner might support the US. I criticize the CCP and the arguments of their apologists because I care about China and its people. (As well as those affected by their actions). Hell, I don't even support Tibet/Xinjiang independence: like any other colonized territory they've been settled for decades and by now those "settlers" and their descendents can claim those areas as their homelands as much as anyone else; any political solution and reconciliation must respect their human rights as well. I really want what's best for China and its people, I just don't buy the argument that the CCP is providing that or that "basic human rights" (like not having you and your father disappeared for splashing ink on a portrait of Xi Jinping, yeah look it up that happened) are some nefarious western idea that Chinese people don't deserve. (And, if any Chinese citizens are reading this and are still offended: welcome to being a world power. Ask an American how to deal with criticism from abroad and at home, they're not always good at it but at least they have practice.)
Overall, I think this is a fantastic comment (as usual), but I'm not sure it's directed at the right person. I'm having a similar conversation with someone else in this thread, and unless I keep reading it incorrectly, I don't think the OP sympathizes with the Chinese government; rather, they're just providing context as to how other Chinese people might disagree with the protests. If anything, there is a little inner conflict and fence-sitting given their personal history, but OP did mention their support for the protests a few times.
Right, I want to make clear it's not quite directed at them (and, like, if they were here in this thread instead of this being linked from elsewhere I'd want to take a less... let's say "frustrated" tone) more it's using that as a jumping off point to somewhat rail against some of these ideas.
Honestly this goes back quite a ways. Maybe I've mentioned it before but I really started noticing this kind of thing back during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. China was using it as propaganda (hey, can't fault that, that's basically what the Olympics are for, and my own country tried the same thing in 2010 Vancouver but we're just not very good at it) and there was a bit of pushback from some people in the west of "wait, what about Tibet and stuff?" This created a pretty big backlash where seemingly every Chinese or Chinese-descended person I knew went super nationalistic on social media for a while.
Though, just to be clear, we should be very careful that the observation of "sometimes Chinese people in the west support not-great actions by China" doesn't turn into some kind of "Jews/Catholics/etc. have divided loyalties!" argument. That's really not where we need to go as a society.
Anyway, there's lots more to say but there's a lot of other things I should be doing as well. I'll look forward to more good conversation later.
Indeed. Unfortunately, our small interactions always occur when I stay up waaay to late on a school night and don't have time to give a meaningful response the next day. I do want to say though that my political beliefs are actually much closer to yours than you might think. It seems like you have a much greater passion for these issues.
As an insight into how OP sees the situation, it's a brilliant post; as a facet to the larger debate, there are a few issues that really stood out to me.
This, and the whole section preceding it on Hong Kong's history, completely omits any hint of discussion about self determination. Framing it as China vs. UK, superpower vs. ex-superpower, reduces Hong Kong from a vibrant city of millions with its own distinct culture to nothing more than a bargaining chip. Just because the UK was wrong doesn't mean that China isn't also wrong.
I was surprised as hell to see one of the replies from a resident saying they don't want independence, but that's exactly my point: it's their damn choice. Not China's, not Britains, but Hong Kong's. And yes, I very much apply the same logic to Scotland, Catalonia, and wherever else anyone might care to mention. The fact that the loss of territory might hurt the country I live in doesn't negate the fact that it's their right to choose. I see that as perhaps the highest test of morality: for a person to advocate for others' rights even when they might be exercised to their detriment.
I can't be sure, but this sounds like they're accusing the protesters of the "extreme violence", not the police. From what I have seen via generally trustworthy press sources, as well as the small amount I was (entirely coincidentally) there to witness in person, that is very much not the case. As for UK/US police, they might well react similarly. And that's a huge problem that we should all be addressing; it's the precise opposite of a justification.
Harder to answer when the party line is "all of this was always our territory", but to answer the subtext it's fair to say that the British Empire was in many ways absolutely abhorrent and should never have happened. Again, though, I would be the first to criticise the British government and their history - the framing here is again gently leading towards a "which country is better/worse" debate, and that is counterproductive. It's not an "us vs them" situation; I want everyone judged by the same standards for everyone's wellbeing and I will be the first to hold my own government to account when they overstep that mark.
I agree to much of your post, but this is where you lost me a little.
This hard line about independence has never been a point of the protest and bringing it up muddies the water it almost appears you are putting 'words in their mouths'. I think t is important to push for what they are actually demanding: Five Demands .
That's a fair point - I definitely didn't word it as well as I could have done. I wasn't intending to speak for the protesters, I was more saying that it still surprises me that independence isn't seen as an end goal because that's what I'd be fighting for, and whether or not that is the goal of the residents, they are the ones with the right to make the determination. I've also been guilty of conflating "democracy" (which is a demand) with "independence" (which is not) even in my own mind, and that's totally on me.
I was trying to say that even the most extreme outcome should be in their hands, but I can totally see that referencing that as a point of principle can skew the argument away from the actual reality of the situation.
I point that out, because the Chinese government is using that talking point, that they want independence, as wedge against the protestors and mainland Chinese population. Chinese government are not recognizing the Five Demands and painting over it with a very wide brush
I also agree that a people have a right to determine their own future
Yup, definitely makes sense, and accuracy is doubly important in the face of propaganda or misinformation.
Totally agree. This is the issue with naive decolonization narratives - the answers to unjust colonial power structures is not the return to unjust precolonial power structures.
I'm not sure I can really buy that line.
Right? Someone should tell that to the Uyghurs. The government isn’t that bad, you’re just making it seem like a full scale genocide.
Yeah, virtually every top-level comment in the thread is calling foul on that bit, with a whole lot to back it up at that.
Edit: OP made a second post addressing this.
Hmmm. I think you might be exemplifying their point here. The poster isn't taking a stance, they're just pointing out that for China, unlike the US, or the modern day UK, democracy and freedom of speech is not baked into the culture and therefore is not a major value (I'm not an expert on China, but I do currently live in Beijing and have talked to enough people about this to agree with that general premise). So depending on where you're from, you're going to see the protests differently. The general response from people online has pretty much ignored this massive "clash of cultures," and responded as if the western democratic aporoach is the only correct way to see the world, while simultaneously being generally unaware of the complexity of the situation, which is why op goes on to say
Democracy wasn't baked into the culture anywhere else it took hold, either. (Including in 'culturally Chinese' Taiwan.) It's true that not everyone in China wants democracy, and probably not even a majority of people there want it, but that doesn't mean very concept of human rights just goes out the window. Human rights aren't just a "western" idea that only applies to certain people based on ancestry, they're a universal ideal that everyone deserves. (And, while I'm undecided about whether or not "democracy" is a human right I believe self-determination is, and you often need one for the other. Also, no matter how "complex" China's history is, that shouldn't be used as a smokescreen for genocide or colonialism.)
Also, it's worth noting that while people on the streets of Beijing don't see democracy as a worthwhile value (what happened to everyone in Beijing who liked democracy, anyway? I feel like it was a popular idea there in 1989) people in Hong Kong very evidently do see democracy as something that's part of their culture. Why should a colonial power in Beijing get a veto on that?
(Also, as to why I keep referring to China as "colonial": they've spent decades settling Han Chinese in territories they annexed in Tibet and Xinjiang. It's not so different from the history of the Canadian or American west.)
First, how can you present multiple viewpoints fairly without making them seem equal? Second, OP stated multiple times that they support the protests.
Also, I don't think apartheid South Africa is a fair comparison for this situation, though I'll admit that I'm not familair enough with either situation, so please correct me if I'm wrong. This is a unique situation, but if I were to pull a comparison from the top of my head, I'd say this is probably closer to Northern Ireland than South Africa.On a personal note for those who may recognize my username on this small site (no need to reply to this), over the past few weeks I've posted several comments in threads about China that tend to go against the popular opinion on this site. I want to make it clear that I do not, in any way, support the actions that the Chinese government has taken against the protesters in Hong Kong, and I am deeply disturbed by what is happening to the Uighurs in Xinjiang. In fact, I am bothered by these things enough that it's become a major factor in my decision to stay in the country when my work contract expires. Having said all that, when I see the sentiment in these threads that props China up as a big bad boogey man, I can't help but think of all the wonderful people I have encountered and the dozens of children that I've taught whom I love and adore. I think it's important to remember that despite the atrocities of the government, there is still a country made up of a billion+ good people, and we should all do our best to understand each other and our differences. That was cheesy and lame, but it's 3:30am so whatever.
Easily? I mean, you could fairly explain what 'climate change skeptics' or creationists believe without making it sound like they had valid points of view. You could even present multiple viewpoints you yourself hold but make it clear which ones you're certain of and which ones you're kind of not sure about.
Agree 100%. China is not evil and the Chinese people are not evil, and even people who support some pretty vile things are deserving of sympathy and are likely not bad people, just people who have had certain ideas presented to them without much chance for alternative viewpoints to be fairly considered. (e.g. I have at least one friend who's strongly against gay marriage because of her Christian beliefs, but she has gay friends and is one of the nicest people I know; she just has as part of her culture and upbringing a religion that tells her she must believe certain things, and it's hard to get yourself out of that. To an extent, I think we really need to be more sympathetic and understanding of people like that instead of throwing them all in the same box with the bigots. Anyway, in terms of actions she's the kind of Christian who volunteers at soup kitchens rather than the kind that protests abortion clinics, no matter what beliefs she's been made to have.)
Yeah, thanks for your perspective. I think even though we seem to disagree on some things we're each coming from the same place of compassion for other people and are informed by our own experiences with China and its people.
Wait is this a literal threat of violence about Winnie-the-Pooh references
I didn't really interpret it that way, I just thought they were making a good point about the fact that many people who are advocating for Hong Kong with memes and things like that don't really have skin in the game, so they should consider the real-world ramifications of what they're pushing. However, there were definitely undertones of "don't disrespect the people in power, or any violence against you is your responsibility." Just my perspective on it.
Interesting, at least it wasn't that overt.
First it feels like this was written by a couple of people, because some parts are written with a very western tone, while others feel like poor translations. The use of the "need I say more" feels like a colloquialism that cannot be easily translated to English, there seems to be a lot of weight give to that phrase. It is used multiple times always with ominous undertones and an implied power threats.
That's an interesting angle which I really hadn't considered. Based on my non-analytical reading of the language it uses, the post seems about right for someone who was born speaking a different language, then moved to an English-speaking country and spent a while there. I'd assume people eventually pick up colloquialisms like that. However, it's certainly valid to consider the possibility of this being some kind of collaborative effort.
My reading of that was more that Westerners don't have much to lose by making fun of China and supporting Hong Kong, but Hong Kongers do. And, in tandem with that, Westerners also tend to have a much less nuanced and informed view than Hong Kongers. So, if they continue to provide pressure without understanding whether they are actually helping the cause or not, it could push tensions over into violence.
For instance, there had been talk in this very thread about confusion over whether independence is a Hong Kong goal or a Chinese party line that the West is parroting, making a needless wedge issue. If the Chinese start chanting about how Hong Kong shouldn't be independent and the US starts chanting that they should, the only people who get screwed over are Hong Kong, because they aren't being listened to by either side.
I guess from their point of view, it's as if Texas or California wanted to cede from the union. We probably wouldn't let that happen, because last time a state tried to cede from the US it was kind of a disaster, and Texas in particular is "under dispute" as an American State in your fringier circles. But internationally, Hong Kong is recognized as Hong Kong, China until 2047, and the extradition laws would be an attempt to alter the deal, as if people could be disappeared by the mainland, that would infringe a little bit on the two system setup.
China, however, would see it as theirs to mess with, and an embarrassment that they can't keep it in line. So that ramble to say that this is a difficult situation and someone's probably going to cross a hard line and we'll have to sort out how we react to it. (Probably with concern and no political action, cause that's how this usually plays out.)
Isn't this the propaganda that the Chinese government has been pushing from the beginning? Framing it as HK wants to break away from China. When it has never been one of the Five Demands of the protestors. I'm not sure the the whole cede analogy works.
It is also interesting that some of the framing from the Western media seems to be highlighting Free HK and never dig into what that actually means.
Eh, I think the real reason the US wouldn't let it happen is because both states are incredibly important to the economic health of the united states.
I secretly wish California would secede, however, as I don't feel guilty about giving them my tax dollars, but I do feel guilty about giving money to the US government since they repeatedly choose to spend it in all the wrong places. That is of course, nothing to say about the policies our current president has been following or the mess that is our current national governmental system (a false pretense of checks and balances, the existence of the electoral college, a justice system which is political in nature, etc.)
That sounds nice, but seems like it would unleash at least a Brexit level catastrophe in the states when we already have a tremendous amount of things to deal with the whole subversion of executive restraint. Granted, Brexit happened on principle to begin with, but it still seems kind of rash, especially since we fought a war the last time states left, and we still have baggage from that 160 years later.
Oh there's no question there'd be a lot of turmoil, instability, and issues caused by such a secession but frankly at this point I'm fed up with following the status quo because it's easy. I'm fed up with the US government rolling back civil rights, hopping into wars we don't need, doing generally embarrassing things, fucking up trade, rolling back environmental protection, and many other generally poor ideas. I don't want to give them my money anymore, but I'd be more than happy to give that same money to the Californian government because at least they have some goddamn common sense.
This is a point that's often brought up but I think it's not a great comparison. When the CCP's defenders (and not saying that's what you're trying to do!) bring this up it's often as a way to say "the West are such hypocrites, leave us alone because you wouldn't accept this either." But when I think of independence movements in "the West" I think of Quebec and Scotland which have both held one or two independence referendums and which both could hold another one if they wanted. There's also Catalonia, I suppose, but the actions of the Spanish government have been shameful on that and if there's political will for it the residents of that region deserve a referendum too.
Even from an American perspective things are a bit murky. The last experience (and reference point) the US has with states leaving is the Civil War which is rather unique compared to what California or Texas trying to leave the union would look like today if there was a political will for it. Also, a state leaving isn't necessarily the best analogy. What about Puerto Rico? It's a more clear American example of "one country, two systems" and in fact they have had referendums about independence. Mostly Americans responded with ambivalence.
Though, like other commenters have noted, independence is not one of the Five Demands of the protesters. It's an open question whether or not Hong Kongers would want independence if they felt it was feasible (i.e. if they thought Beijing wouldn't rather kill every last man, woman, and child in Hong Kong rather than accept their independence) but in any case it's not what the protesters are trying to achieve.
True, although Puerto Rico still isn't a perfect analogy because the people there have a different language and ethnic background than "most" Americans and aren't really seen as integral to the union from a territorial or economic standpoint. The neglect after Hurricane Maria is a chief example of that mindset. Hong Kong's status is a very difficult situation because it's pretty unique IMO.
It's not a perfect analogy sure, I just mean it's at least as good or better than the California/Texas independence comparison that's often made. Also, I feel the need to mention that Hong Kong does have a different language. Cantonese and Mandarin are no more dialects of each other than Italian and French are. They're mutually unintelligible and even written Cantonese can be difficult or impossible to read for Mandarin speakers (owing to different grammar and idioms, etc.) despite using many of the same characters.
But don't take my word for it. For a Hong Kong perspective some good sources are this article: Insurgent tongues: how loose Cantonese romanisation became Hong Kong’s patois of protest and if you have Netflix you might enjoy a segment of the Hong Kong film "Ten Years". It's a series of short stories about a near future where China asserts its control (it was made pre-protest, but is obviously prescient) and at the 48 minute mark is a story called "Dialect" on this topic. I won't spoil it, but if you have 10 minutes it's worth watching.
Edit: And, on this topic, it's worth remembering to always take with a grain of salt any talk of how "homogeneous" China is. While there's truth to it there's also a lot of propaganda involved from a government trying to rule over and hold together a vast and diverse country.
Ah, that's true. People often refer to the "Chinese" language, which completely ignores nuances like that.