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.
I know they exist, but the reality is they are way too few in number. If they wanted to instigate change they would have done so. CCP has been in power for 7 decades. The reality is their only effort was thwarted in 1989 and they never bothered again since.
Their resistance would not be about supporting Taiwan or Hong Kong. Their ideals are against CCP, sure, but that does not equate their support for Taiwan or for Hong Kong. Many who are against CCP are also staunchly against Taiwan's international participation and HK's protests, the two are not mutually exclusive. Like I said, China's territorial integrity is a 70-year long indoctrination.
Bless their hearts for their grassroot resistance (which is practically non-existent, btw, no matter how many books might have been smuggled into China), but it is ultimately for China's own democratic movement, which have nothing to do with Taiwan or Hong Kong, nor do we care (I certainly don't).
The callings on self-determination and human dignity are legit, but to believe that these alone could attract foreign intervention is beyond naive. They are more excuses for intervention than stand-alone messages. Ultimately, it's about national interests. To manipulate the animosity between China and other countries (well, basically just the US at this point since the EU couldn't care less, nor do they have the capacity) is their only shot, and this angle yields the strongest legitimacy.
If you actually believe in the power of communication, be my guest. I just want to remind you that Poland eventually gained independence because USSR collapsed overnight, if it were up to the Soviets they never would have pulled through, and the LGBT movement is not remotely comparable to Taiwan or Hong Kong's problem with China.
12 was obviously a metaphor for "very few".
The reality is that all pathways by themselves are longshots, and few in number is still a better shot than even less in number which is what having any emphasis on attacks on Chinese in general as a people rather than the CCP does. 1989 was only the effort that was largest and covered by international news agencies--it is far from the only and the people who participated and crushed in 1989 for the most part didn't seem to end up as cheerleaders for the CCP.
I never said these were mutually exclusive, only that they are likely to be the most amenable to having positions that are against the CCP (enemy of your enemy is your friend) or have come outright in supporting HK and Taiwan which is certainly true.
Aligning people's own agendas with your and my own like Taiwanese independence from CCP is akin to actual strategies that have worked historically. Besides, a disrupted China dealing with its internal issues can still work out in Taiwan and HK's favor though obviously there can be the setting of a bogeyman to divert attention from internal issues which is something that a pushback against aggressively anti-Chinese, not just anti-CCP, can ride on pretty easily.
I have no qualms with calling the reliance on solely foreign leanings against the CCP is naive. I said that already. It is not by itself a strategy that seems workable at this point, but that's different from saying that no one believes or is actively trying to solicit that as a believed main recourse. This "their only shot" thing you mentioned about national interests still relies on general popular sentiment. Guess what, some countries have populaces that aren't too enticed by messaging of overt bigotry towards Chinese people overall especially since some of those countries that do have the ability to project some power have first and second generation Chinese immigrants who may be pro-democracy and anti-CCP but might take a bit of umbrage and be hesitant to support movements that so vocally state that the Chinese are subhuman. I already noted this and you need to realize this.
Your reminder is noted and still kind of useless, because I already stated such. The USSR collapsed for various reasons, but at least some of it was because of how untenable it was to hold the union together given the disparate groups asking for independence working together including overseas Russians to bring about the fall of the USSR. Not every goal each group and person had was aligned, but enough of it was aligned to help make it happen. You also need to remember that even in this short thread, you were the one who had stated
Quote:
And this goes beyond China. The "communication" tactic is overrated. The same goes for every single controversy. Be it racism, religion, sexuality etc. Some people (or in this case, most people) simply could not be reached. When you know they wouldn't listen why even bother giving a **** about them? They certainly don't give a **** about you.
This is very obviously even within recent history not true, and I gave an example of where that was not true. You're the one who mentioned that it wasn't how things went for sexuality, and I gave you a very concrete counter example.
If you have any inclination towards wanting a Taiwan or HK that isn't under the oppressive rule of the current day CCP, then you should reconsider how you arrived at your counterproductive anti-Chinese mainlanders as a people narrative. Even if you think trying to bring them in helps fairly little, there isn't much other recourse and it almost certainly does not help. Even if you can't personally stop your prejudice for mainlanders as a general group, then at least realize that strategically it is nonsense, and I ask you, please direct your energy in regards to HK and Taiwanese independence elsewhere.
As a side note, there are also gradients here. A progressive, prosperous and democratic China that is open to unification with HK and Taiwan is far, which is not my preference over independence for various reasons, is still far preferable than forced annexation by a conservative, authoritarian CCP-controlled China. This is also part of why it matters that HK and Taiwan is able to befriend and bolster anti-CCP and anti-authoritarian allies within the mainland and dissidents within and outside of China.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 05-29-2020 at 05:06 PM..
As a side note, there are also gradients here. A progressive, prosperous and democratic China that is open to unification with HK and Taiwan is far, which is not my preference over independence for various reasons, is still far preferable than forced annexation by a conservative, authoritarian CCP-controlled China. This is also part of why it matters that HK and Taiwan is able to befriend and bolster anti-CCP and anti-authoritarian allies within the mainland and dissidents within and outside of China.
They do, but even if they don't, they don't pay a single tax dollar to the central government, so you can't claim "taxation without representation"
I just reread an English translation of the Joint Agreement by Britain and China Defining the Future of Hong Kong that is found in The Search for Modern China by Pei Kai Cheng and Jonathan Spence. You are right in that Hong Kong is exempt from paying taxes to Peking as is stated in Article #8 of the agreement.
Economic liberties are defined throughout all twelve articles but political and civil liberties are most definitely mentioned as well. It states clearly that Hong Kong's laws will remain basically unchanged and that judicial power will remain independent and free from Mainland interference. Free speech and assembly are also explicitly protected. So the question is does President Xi have the legal right to take away such liberties? It's almost like amending a nation's constitution without consultation of the legislature don't you think?
I just reread an English translation of the Joint Agreement by Britain and China Defining the Future of Hong Kong that is found in The Search for Modern China by Pei Kai Cheng and Jonathan Spence. You are right in that Hong Kong is exempt from paying taxes to Peking as is stated in Article #8 of the agreement.
Economic liberties are defined throughout all twelve articles but political and civil liberties are most definitely mentioned as well. It states clearly that Hong Kong's laws will remain basically unchanged and that judicial power will remain independent and free from Mainland interference. Free speech and assembly are also explicitly protected. So the question is does President Xi have the legal right to take away such liberties? It's almost like amending a nation's constitution without consultation of the legislature don't you think?
please tell me what liberties are being taken away now? do you consider pushing for independence, working with foreign powers to conduct anti government activities and acts of terrorism liberty?
the national security law is already embedded into the basic law article 23 where it states that hong kong must legislate laws to protect the national security. They failed to do that in 23 years. Macau on the other hand did it in 2009 and no one is persecuted and no liberties was ever took away.
Look, china has two SARs, and they are being treated the same way by the central government as they should be. I don't see how this is fair to macau government and people when hong kong is getting away with all these bull****s for so many years.
Well, the Mensheviks were exterminated and I don’t think they were all that much for free markets in general. It’s sort of an odd reference point for talking about Taiwan and HK. China today isn’t even all that Bolsheviks or Menshevik at this point or the last couple of decades, and before that, communism with Chinese characteristics already veered quite a bit from either Russian streams of thought.
please tell me what liberties are being taken away now? do you consider pushing for independence, working with foreign powers to conduct anti government activities and acts of terrorism liberty?
the national security law is already embedded into the basic law article 23 where it states that hong kong must legislate laws to protect the national security. They failed to do that in 23 years. Macau on the other hand did it in 2009 and no one is persecuted and no liberties was ever took away.
Look, china has two SARs, and they are being treated the same way by the central government as they should be. I don't see how this is fair to macau government and people when hong kong is getting away with all these bull****s for so many years.
Well for starters it is supposed to be the Hong Kong legislature that is supposed to draft and pass the legislation, not Peking's unless Article 23 explicitly says that failure to pass the national security law within 20 years of the creation of the SAR will result in the Mainland Government unilaterally doing it for them. As to why HK has not passed the law yet, go ask their legislature. Perhaps they should have worded it differently. As I mentioned in a previous post, this whole mess could have been avoided if the two sides came together back before the 2014 Occupy Movement to talk it out and reach an agreement. That whole violent movement did not have to have happened. You are right that the HK legislature shoulders part of the blame but the Peking Government could have just come in as a mediator to listen to all voices instead of unilaterally taking the side of the big businesses. So now you have both sides combusting like oil and water and believe me, it's not going to end in a good way.
Well, the Mensheviks were exterminated and I don’t think they were all that much for free markets in general. It’s sort of an odd reference point for talking about Taiwan and HK. China today isn’t even all that Bolsheviks or Menshevik at this point or the last couple of decades, and before that, communism with Chinese characteristics already veered quite a bit from either Russian streams of thought.
What I meant was that in the quest to win the power struggle and take control of the revolution, the Mensheviks believed in opening their struggles up to anyone interested regardless of background and then attempt to reform the Russian government from within. This was in contrast to the Bolshevik method of relying solely on a group of dedicated individuals from a certain social class only that were wholly opposed to the Czarist regime and all supporters of it. It was not the best analogy I admit.
A better analogy perhaps is Sun Yat Sen's statement he made in a speech (I believe it was the one at the 1924 opening of the Huangpu (Whampoa) Military Academy that "We must arouse the masses of the people and unite in a common struggle with those nations of the world which treat us as equals." I know he said that somewhere but I don't quite recall where. Anyways you get my point, the idea of befriending all outsiders willing to join the cause and strengthening relations with other nations that have the same viewpoint.
Well for starters it is supposed to be the Hong Kong legislature that is supposed to draft and pass the legislation, not Peking's unless Article 23 explicitly says that failure to pass the national security law within 20 years of the creation of the SAR will result in the Mainland Government unilaterally doing it for them. As to why HK has not passed the law yet, go ask their legislature. Perhaps they should have worded it differently. As I mentioned in a previous post, this whole mess could have been avoided if the two sides came together back before the 2014 Occupy Movement to talk it out and reach an agreement. That whole violent movement did not have to have happened. You are right that the HK legislature shoulders part of the blame but the Peking Government could have just come in as a mediator to listen to all voices instead of unilaterally taking the side of the big businesses. So now you have both sides combusting like oil and water and believe me, it's not going to end in a good way.
ok, I can provide you with the info on this matter with the best of my knowledge.
under basic law "extra section 3", there is a provision stating that the people's congress (chinese government) can put "national wide" enforced laws into that session, and that law automatically becomes law in hk. it's up to the chinese government to add/subtract any laws under that section 3 to be enforced in hk. This is the legal basis for adding the national security law in hk in a couple months. They have already done it before with the national flag and recently the national anthem law.
and no, I don't think this whole mess can be avoided. Do you know what the 2014 movement is about? they are asking for something that's not allowed under the basic law. It was about the way the chief executive is elected in a general election. one side wanted to be able to nominate anyone to be candidate, while the other side says a selection committee must first select the candidates (as outlined in the basic law)
Even macau doesn't get this far with their ways of electing their chief executive. So I'm not sure how the chinese government can really work with those people of hk. And no, the chinese government did not take side of the big businesses. The conflict was that the chinese government is okay with advancing the democratic process one step at a time and see if it works while the protestors just wants one way their way and that's it.
Dangerous-boy can also never agree I'm not Chinese either, it's out of the realm of possibilities for a bulgarian not to be a pro-russian alcoholic who walks on top of buildings because the laws of gravity don't apply to him. Hell I'll even claim I'm philipino from now on it may be more interesting online.
Yes, they may even harm mainland Chinese spouses of westerners when they go to HK. Westerners in love with Mainland Chinese better think again the behaviour of the people before supporting them. Anti western grows very high in China nowadays because most westerners, including those in Mainland China and in HK support most of their governments' views without independently thinking what's really going on and understanding the different opinions of the Chinese people in mainland China and HK. Anyone agreeing with Trump or his supporters in other countries is an unfriendly person to most Chinese in China. Western education is now regarded as undesirable by the Chinese, the past glory of having western education is now frown upon by Chinese employers, employing educated in China instead. Western teachers are less hired due to afraid of children being wrongly educated or dissatisfaction with the West.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I think the problem with HK protestors is that there's a huge section of them that are antagonistic towards not just the CCP, but people from Mainland China in general.
What gets the most attention among Mainland Chinese is instead snide jabs about Mainland Chinese as people or outright hostility. It's frankly just an incredibly stupid thing to do, and unfortunately some Taiwanese are also going along the same lines as that.
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.
