Chinese Plans to Destroy Democracy in Hong Kong

@shavixmir said
No. But British racist rule over Hong Kong says nothing about China’s plans to destroy its fledgling democracy.

Just because Britain was a bad girl, doesn’t mean you can’t criticise China’s behaviour.

I don’t see you offering Israel the same leniency: “Oh, the Nazis were bad to the Jews, so Israel’s behaviour towards the Palestinians...”

Europeans demand that non-Europeans 'compensate' other Europeans (Jews) for a European genocide.

Some Westerners here (e.g. Sonhouse) have argued that the Palestinians were morally
obliged to give up their land to compensate European Jews for a European genocide.

The Palestinians were NOT responsible for the European genocide of Jews.

Given that the USA's so pro-Zionist, why did it not offer some of its land for a 'Jewish homeland'?
In 1945, the USA had a much larger Jewish population than Palestine had (despite recent Jewish immigration).
It would have made sense to establish a 'Jewish homeland' in a country that already
had a large Jewish population. Of course, the real reason is that there still was
considerable anti-Semitism in the USA. And (hypocritical) Americans found it
much easier to make helpless Palestinians give up their land rather grant any
US land for a 'Jewish homeland'.

@duchess64 said
Europeans demand that non-Europeans 'compensate' other Europeans (Jews) for a European genocide.

Some Westerners here (e.g. Sonhouse) have argued that the Palestinians were morally
obliged to give up their land to compensate European Jews for a European genocide.

The Palestinians were NOT responsible for the European genocide of Jews.

Given that the USA's so pro- ...[text shortened]... to make helpless Palestinians give up their land rather grant any
US land for a 'Jewish homeland'.

I’m sure the second coming of Christ had something to do with it (Christian zionism).

@duchess64 said
The thread's title's premise seems to be that democracy thrived in Hong Kong (left behind by the wonderful British) before the evil Chinese decided to 'destroy' it.
One cannot destroy what never existed.

Perhaps the word "liberalism" should have been substituted for "democracy" in the title? Some champions of the old (British-ruled) Hong Kong have celebrated it as a "liberal autocracy", i.e., a state where a non-democratic administration protected basic human rights. Some have argued that "liberal autocracy" is to be preferred to "illiberal democracy".

Fareed Zakaria: "Until 1991, [Hong Kong] had never held a meaningful election, but its government epitomized constitutional liberalism, protecting its citizens' basic rights and administering a fair court system and bureaucracy. A September 8, 1997 editorial in the Washington Post was titled ominously, 'Undoing Hong Kong's Democracy'. Actually, Hong Kong has precious little democracy to undo; what it has is a framework of rights and laws."

@teinosuke said
Perhaps the word "liberalism" should have been substituted for "democracy" in the title? Some champions of the old (British-ruled) Hong Kong have celebrated it as a "liberal autocracy", i.e., a state where a non-democratic administration protected basic human rights. Some have argued that "liberal autocracy" is to be preferred to "illiberal democracy".

Fareed Zakaria: "U ...[text shortened]... ..] Hong Kong has precious little democracy to undo; what it has is a framework of rights and laws."

This thread's creator might ignorantly believe that democracy always thrived in
British colonial Hong Kong, and that all Chinese loved having a few white British
men rule over them because they recognized that the British were far superior.

To this day, the US media loves to present an absurdly idealized image of British colonial
rule in Hong Kong as a model (non-racist, of course) democracy from its inception.
Most white Americans of my acquaintance apparently like to believe that and also
that the British rightfully and peacefully acquired Hong Kong and any attempt by
China to regain sovereignty over it was sheer unprovoked Communist aggression.

That reminds me of officially approved textbooks (in the southern USA) teaching
children (including black children) that slavery was a benign institution and black
people were happy (except for ungrateful runways) to be slaves.

After the Second World War, Chiang Kai-shek asked the USA to support his claim
to have Hong Kong return immediately to China's sovereignty. The USA instead
supported the British Empire. But the USA did not support a British aim of detaching
Tibet from China and adding Tibet (as a protectorate) to the British Empire.
The USA approved of China's sovereignty (stated by Chiang Kai-shek) over Tibet.
My point (though most Westerners here are likely too stupid to grasp it) is that
Hong Kong and Tibet are issues of Chinese nationalism, not Communism.

British colonial rule in Hong Kong was not far removed from an apartheid state.
In Hong Kong, the British censored the media and harshly punished criticisms by Chinese.
Some of my relatives were force-fed British propaganda in Hong Kong schools,
which glorified the British Empire, including British imperialism upon China.
(As I recall, when one young student dared to suggest that the textbooks be revised,
the British promptly jailed him for sedition. ) Of course, the British did their utmost
to instill fear and loathing of the People's Republic of China among Hong Kong's people,
and, having complete control for so long, they succeeded to some extent.

Hong Kong's young protestors today have no memory of British colonial rule,
so they tend to compare the Hong Kong reality today ('warts-and-all' ) with the
British manufactured propaganda image of Hong Kong.

One of my relatives emerged from his experiences in Hong Kong with a lasting
loathing of the British, which led him to support Argentina in the Falklands / Malvinas War.
Sadly, he died shortly before Hong Kong returned to China's sovereignty.
I know that it would have been a happy day of celebration for him.

Teinosuke, if you believe that British colonial rule in Hong Kong was benign or fair,
you are swallowing what the British propaganda machine (including the BBC) has told you.
You have no experience of being a non-white person under British colonial rule.
A Chinese member of the Hong Kong civil service told me that he had quit in disgust
because he kept noticing much less qualified and capable white British expats
being paid and promoted more for doing the same work in the same department,
even though he did it much better. Would Teinosuke have been happy in his position?

There were a few Hong Kong Chinese who derived their wealth or 'power' by
serving their imperial masters well and, naturally, the UK media love to quote their,
say, fawning over the British royal family and pretend that it represents all Hong Kong Chinese.

So I suspect that Teinosuke and I may look at British colonial rule in Hong Kong
from opposing sides of the apartheid wall between us.

China's not a democracy, and I don't expect Hong Kong today to be a utopia.
I also dismiss the typical hysterical expectations of ignorant racist Westerners.
Back in 1997, I heard white people tell me that they were certain that PLA soldiers
would soon invade Hong Kong and slaughter thousands of people.
That never happened, and, of course, those white people never have conceded error.

I perceive Hong Kong as a child in the Chinese family, a child that was separated
and reared by outsiders, yet one who has returned to the family. Naturally, after
such a separation, there may be issues of adjustment.

To the British, good riddance (and try to avoid self-pity over losing part of your empire).
Hong Kong is a part of China, and its fate is tied to the fate of 1.4 billion+ people in China.
When they rise, Hong Kong will rise too. I believe that all China has the potential to rise.
I also believe that it's unrealistic to imagine a Hong Kong floating serenely above a China in distress.

@duchess64 said
Philokalia keeps blatantly lying as usual.

Philokalia presumably greatly admires British racist colonial rule over Hong Kong.

It's a fock of a lot better than Chinese Communist Racist Slavery rule over Hong Kong

@Duchess64 - The real issue is that the USA fears China becoming stronger and will do about anything to stop it.

You may be right about American motive. But, all that means is that the US is right for the wrong reason.

They are still right.

@Duchess64 - When Mao Zedong died (1976), how many Westerners could have predicted that
'Red China' would unleash (largely unregulated) capitalism? None.

Certainly not me. Strange world.

@duchess64 said
Teinosuke, if you believe that British colonial rule in Hong Kong was benign or fair,
you are swallowing what the British propaganda machine (including the BBC) has told you.
You have no experience of being a non-white person under British colonial rule.

I wonder why you impute to me views that I explicitly attributed to "some champions of the old (British-ruled) Hong Kong" and to a specific, named writer?

@teinosuke said
I wonder why you impute to me views that I explicitly attributed to "some champions of the old (British-ruled) Hong Kong" and to a specific, named writer?

I wrote:
"Teinosuke, IF you believe that British colonial rule in Hong Kong was benign or fair,
you are swallowing what the British propaganda machine (including the BBC) has told you."

Teinosuke chose to quote Fareed Zakaria WITHOUT expressing any qualifications about what he quoted.

Fareed Zakaria is an American journalist originally from India.
As far as I know, he never lived in British colonial Hong Kong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria

"Zakaria wrote in February 2008 that "Conservatism grew powerful in the 1970s
and 1980s because it proposed solutions appropriate to the problems of the age"

I disagree that Reagan and Thatcher 'proposed solutions appropriate to the problems of the age.'

"As a student at Yale University in the mid-1980s, Zakaria opposed anti-apartheid
divestment and argued that Yale should not divest from its holdings in South Africa."

"Zakaria initially supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[16] He said at the time,
"The place is so dysfunctional ... any stirring of the pot is good. America's involvement in
the region is for the good."

@duchess64 said
I have no problem with Hong Kong people criticizing China's government.
I may or may not agree with the criticisms, yet I have no problem with them doing it.

The thread's title's premise seems to be that democracy thrived in Hong Kong (left
behind by the wonderful British) before the evil Chinese decided to 'destroy' it.
One cannot destroy what never existed.

Hon ...[text shortened]... rners could have predicted that
'Red China' would unleash (largely unregulated) capitalism? None.

Westerners could not have cared less about the absence of democracy in Hong Kong when
it was ruled by the British. Now that it's not, they suddenly profess that it's a vital issue.

Hong Kong is a part of China. A democratic Hong Kong is inseparable from a more democratic China.
I don't believe in the fantasy of Hong Kong (as an isolated island) floating serenely above a China in distress.

So any Westerners who care about democracy in Hong Kong should encourage
China to become more democratic, but it's easier to support Hong Kong separatism.
Note that no Westerners supported Hong Kong becoming 'independent' when it
was a part of the British Empire. Most Westerners are such hypocrites.

@shavixmir said
I’m sure the second coming of Christ had something to do with it (Christian zionism).

I think it has more to do with the funding of specifically zionist Protestant preachers like Scofield.

Not even all Protestants buy into this -- it's really just problematic among evangelical Christians who have been groomed and are now actively maintained by Zionist interests & self-policing.

@philokalia said
I think it has more to do with the funding of specifically zionist Protestant preachers like Scofield.

Not even all Protestants buy into this -- it's really just problematic among evangelical Christians who have been groomed and are now actively maintained by Zionist interests & self-policing.

Suzianne's a 'liberal' Christian who seems fanatically pro-Zionist and apparently regards
Israel as above criticism. I never have heard her significantly criticize Israel.
(She might criticize sexual harassment in Israel, but not Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. )

Many, if not most, white American evangelical Christians empathize much more
with racist Jewish settlers than with the Palestinian Christians.

@duchess64 said
Suzianne's a 'liberal' Christian who seems fanatically pro-Zionist and apparently regards
Israel as above criticism. I never have heard her significantly criticize Israel.
(She might criticize sexual harassment in Israel, but not Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. )

Many, if not most, white American evangelical Christians empathize much more
with racist Jewish settlers than with the Palestinian Christians.

I have a question:

Can all Jewish settlers be racist, or can only Ashkenazi Jewish settlers be racist?

Honestly, this would be a very pressing question if you bought into these racialized politics, IMO.

@philokalia said
I have a question:

Can all Jewish settlers be racist, or can only Ashkenazi Jewish settlers be racist?

Honestly, this would be a very pressing question if you bought into these racialized politics, IMO.

Philokalia seems to be aiming for a technical quibble that a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors
came from an Arab society could be considered to have the same 'race' as an Arab.

Clearly, I use the term 'racism' to refer to a form of tribal prejudice or discrimination against an out-group.
By law and practice, the state of Israel is deeply racist because it privileges its Jewish
citizens and discriminates against its non-Jewish (particularly Arab) citizens.

@duchess64 said
Philokalia seems to be aiming for a technical quibble that a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors
came from an Arab society could be considered to have the same 'race' as an Arab.

Clearly, I use the term 'racism' to refer to a form of tribal prejudice or discrimination against an out-group.
By law and practice, the state of Israel is deeply racist because it privileges its Jewish
citizens and discriminates against its non-Jewish (particularly Arab) citizens.

Earlier today, you talked about how some groups can be racist, while others have racial prejudice.

Note that Duchess64 is willing to use the adjective 'racist' both broadly (to refer to any racial prejudice against an out-group) and also more narrowly, in which case racism can only refer to an empowered group displaying racial prejudice. Also, note that Duchess64 thinks that racial identities sometimes are just a technical quibble when this can be a major barrier for Jews of non-Ashkenazi descent.