Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Listen, I keep telling people that most Chinese back the PRC government.
They'd better, if they know what's good for them. The PRC government has little tolerance for ordinary subjects who get together and announce publicly they don't like what the government is doing. Such people tend to disappear.
The ones who are left, quickly announce they "back the PRC government", as you described.
Listen, I keep telling people that most Chinese back the PRC government. While the PRC is guilty of many atrocities (more so in the past than today), it has also lifted hundreds of millions (an astounding figure when you think about it) out of poverty and has run a fairly stable government and country for decades.
It doesn't surprise me that Chan is taking the position that he is taking.
This is like saying Democrats freed slaves even they fought for the slavery.
Chinese government did NOT lift anybody out of poverty. The Chinese government enslaved the people and later eased their slavery. Why should the slaves thank their owners for the freedom that belong to them to begin with?
Capitalism lifted the people out of poverty.
Now the Chinese government does a fantastic job, as good as the media in US, brainwashing their people. This is why the majority of the Chinese are supportive of the government.
Had their media simply reported truth, the communist party would be thrown out quickly.
Had our media simply reported truth, the Democrats would never win another election.
In 1839, in the First Opium War, Britain invaded China to crush opposition to its interference in the country’s economic, social, and political affairs. One of Britain’s first acts of war was to occupy Hong Kong, a sparsely inhabited island off the coast of southeast China. In 1841, China ceded the island to the British with the signing of the Convention of Chuenpi, and in 1842 the Treaty of Nanking was signed, formally ending the First Opium War.
On July 1, 1898, Britain was granted an additional 99 years of rule over the Hong Kong colony under the Second Convention of Peking.
On December 19, 1984, after years of negotiations, British and Chinese leaders signed a formal pact approving the 1997 turnover of the colony in exchange for the formulation of a “one country, two systems” policy by China’s communist government.
At midnight on July 1, 1997, Hong Kong was peaceably handed over to China in a ceremony attended by numerous international dignitaries, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Prince Charles, Chinese President Jiang Zemin, and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. A few thousand citizens of Hong Kong protested the turnover, which was otherwise celebratory and peaceful.
In other words, Hong Kong's changing hands was almost exclusively the result of violent force and war. HK's citizens were not consulted.
The last line quoted above is particularly ironic. Grandiose leaders from all over the world celebrated the (forcible) return of Hong Kong to the PRC. The fact that thousands of HK citizens didn't like it at all, and took the risk of publicly protesting against new owners who were known to ruthlessly stamp out any such protest in lands they owned, is dismissed as an unimportant "a few" before the author goes back to praising the "peaceful" takeover. It was "peaceful" only because the citizens of Hong Kong, as always, had no way to control what was going to happen to them.
This is like saying Democrats freed slaves even they fought for the slavery.
Chinese government did NOT lift anybody out of poverty. The Chinese government enslaved the people and later eased their slavery. Why should the slaves thank their owners for the freedom that belong to them to begin with?
Capitalism lifted the people out of poverty.
Now the Chinese government does a fantastic job, as good as the media in US, brainwashing their people. This is why the majority of the Chinese are supportive of the government.
Had their media simply reported truth, the communist party would be thrown out quickly.
Had our media simply reported truth, the Democrats would never win another election.
That's your spin on it. The Chinese government decided to implement capitalism to an extent. They could have continued with pure socialism and had their people suffer for it but they didn't. I stand by what I wrote.
They'd better, if they know what's good for them. The PRC government has little tolerance for ordinary subjects who get together and announce publicly they don't like what the government is doing. Such people tend to disappear.
The ones who are left, quickly announce they "back the PRC government", as you described.
They'd better. Or else.
Or the overwhelming majority could simply be happy with where they are in life and how they and their families have risen out of poverty over the years under PRC leadership
Again, democracy isn't for everyone. Millions of people fought and died for this form of government in China to exist today. That their form of government isn't for me personally doesn't mean that many dont want it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
