Close

Complete Captcha

• 11 months - 71 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 144 Goods vs 133 No Goods

1. Economist
   4d51
   

   No. It's not like that at all. You keep repeating these false arguments.

   Hong Kong was part of China from 200BC until 1842, so that's 2000 years.

   Then, for the relatively short time of 99 years, they were a British colony, until they returned once again to China.

   The Dutch don't consider themselves German because, unlike Hong Kong, they weren't part of Germany for all but a brief time in a 2200 year history.

   Hong Kongers irrationally don't consider themselves Chinese, even though their origin is Chinese, and they've been part of China for 95% of the time they've existed. This isn't comparable in any way to distinct European countries.

   Because modern "Chinese" population is bastardized with northern nomadic genes. HKgers, and Cantonese in general, have a different "Southern" culture. It's like asking why the Dutch don't consider themselves German. The Liangguang area should have seceded a long time ago like us Vietnamese did.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 4 Good 1 No Good !

2. Economist
   a70a
   

   ^ ridiculous mainlander peasant

   11 months ago # QUOTE 2 Good 4 No Good !

3. Economist
   a70a
   

   动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门 香港警察的暴行 Hong Kong police brutality

   11 months ago # QUOTE 1 Good 2 No Good !

4. Economist
   62f8
   

   lol at giving HKers citizenship

   Neoliberals will do literally anything to push their insane 'more more more more more more immigration' agenda

   11 months ago # QUOTE 3 Good 0 No Good !

5. Economist
   c704
   

   No. It's not like that at all. You keep repeating these false arguments.
   Hong Kong was part of China from 200BC until 1842, so that's 2000 years.
   Then, for the relatively short time of 99 years, they were a British colony, until they returned once again to China.
   The Dutch don't consider themselves German because, unlike Hong Kong, they weren't part of Germany for all but a brief time in a 2200 year history.
   Hong Kongers irrationally don't consider themselves Chinese, even though their origin is Chinese, and they've been part of China for 95% of the time they've existed. This isn't comparable in any way to distinct European countries.

   Because modern "Chinese" population is bastardized with northern nomadic genes. HKgers, and Cantonese in general, have a different "Southern" culture. It's like asking why the Dutch don't consider themselves German. The Liangguang area should have seceded a long time ago like us Vietnamese did.
   

   in 200 bc people in hong kong werent calling themselves chinese

   11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

6. Economist
   ec86
   

   Why do Canadians think they are not Americans?

   11 months ago # QUOTE 1 Good 0 No Good !

7. Economist
   ec86
   

   lol at giving HKers citizenship
   Neoliberals will do literally anything to push their insane 'more more more more more more immigration' agenda

   Wow, no the alt-right adopted the meaningless term "neoliberal" too. Used to be only used by the far-left.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

8. Economist
   6ab5
   

   in 200 bc people in hong kong werent calling themselves chinese

   Duh, because they weren't speaking English in 200 BC. They were speaking whatever dialectal form of ancient Chinese that existed back then.

   The answer to OP's question is that in recent years, the PRC has done a very poor job of fulfilling the "social contract" with HK. The deal has historically been, "we're gonna be hands-off, you can live your life how you want, just don't question our rule." For all the talk about how "free" HK was as British colony, the one thing you still couldn't do was criticize British rule. The British didn't hesitate to convict newspapers of "sedition" if the newspapers ran editorials calling for an end to British rule.

   But aside from that, the British were indeed largely aloof rulers. In the initial years after the handover, the Chinese followed the British example. There's a nice Vox video that explains the incentives. Back then, China still needed Hong Kong and so China had to play nice. But as the years went on, China developed its megacities to the point where it didn't "need" Hong Kong like it used to. So now China feels no need to treat HK any differently from Beijing, Shanghai, etc.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 3 Good 1 No Good !

9. Economist
   3fa0
   

   in 200 bc people in hong kong werent calling themselves chinese

   Duh, because they weren't speaking English in 200 BC. They were speaking whatever dialectal form of ancient Chinese that existed back then.
   The answer to OP's question is that in recent years, the PRC has done a very poor job of fulfilling the "social contract" with HK. The deal has historically been, "we're gonna be hands-off, you can live your life how you want, just don't question our rule." For all the talk about how "free" HK was as British colony, the one thing you still couldn't do was criticize British rule. The British didn't hesitate to convict newspapers of "sedition" if the newspapers ran editorials calling for an end to British rule.
   But aside from that, the British were indeed largely aloof rulers. In the initial years after the handover, the Chinese followed the British example. There's a nice Vox video that explains the incentives. Back then, China still needed Hong Kong and so China had to play nice. But as the years went on, China developed its megacities to the point where it didn't "need" Hong Kong like it used to. So now China feels no need to treat HK any differently from Beijing, Shanghai, etc.

   The people who lived in the Guangdong region in 200BC were not Han Chinese, merely conquered by them. The main influx of Han occurred in the 8th century AD.

   Taiwan has been part of China for about 10% of the period between 200BC-2020AD. I am not sure I agree with your argument that Taiwan is not part of China though.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 2 Good 1 No Good !

10. Economist
    1131
    

    ^ what matters is what the inhabitants think now. They don’t think they are Chinese now and don’t want to be. Anything else is aggressive, irredentist tripe from a nasty dictatorship in China itself.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 2 Good 1 No Good !

11. Economist
    a02d
    

    The problem with the "HK has been ruled by the Han since 200 BC" argument is that the Han never controlled Taiwan.

    What now, CCP?

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

12. Economist
    c3a5
    

    in 200 bc people in hong kong werent calling themselves chinese

    Duh, because they weren't speaking English in 200 BC. They were speaking whatever dialectal form of ancient Chinese that existed back then.
    The answer to OP's question is that in recent years, the PRC has done a very poor job of fulfilling the "social contract" with HK. The deal has historically been, "we're gonna be hands-off, you can live your life how you want, just don't question our rule." For all the talk about how "free" HK was as British colony, the one thing you still couldn't do was criticize British rule. The British didn't hesitate to convict newspapers of "sedition" if the newspapers ran editorials calling for an end to British rule.
    But aside from that, the British were indeed largely aloof rulers. In the initial years after the handover, the Chinese followed the British example. There's a nice Vox video that explains the incentives. Back then, China still needed Hong Kong and so China had to play nice. But as the years went on, China developed its megacities to the point where it didn't "need" Hong Kong like it used to. So now China feels no need to treat HK any differently from Beijing, Shanghai, etc.

    The people who lived in the Guangdong region in 200BC were not Han Chinese, merely conquered by them. The main influx of Han occurred in the 8th century AD.
    Taiwan has been part of China for about 10% of the period between 200BC-2020AD. I am not sure I agree with your argument that Taiwan is not part of China though.

    If we think people in Song dynasty are the most genuine Han/Chinese, then people in Canton/Hone Kong should be the most genuine Han/Chinese. Because after Song Dynasty, Mongolian and Manchu started to blend with people who lived in the northern part of China, but Cantonese were not much affected.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 2 No Good !

13. Economist
    c3a5
    

    Chinese =/= Han =/= PRC =/= China =/= CCP

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

14. Economist
    97ed
    

    Why doesn’t the beautiful swan think it’s an ugly duckling?

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

15. Economist
    d2c0
    

    lol at giving HKers citizenship
    Neoliberals will do literally anything to push their insane 'more more more more more more immigration' agenda

    More Hong Kong people in the UK would be a good thing.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 2 Good 0 No Good !

16. Economist
    d02d
    

    The answer to all this should be obvious to anyone who has spent time in Hong Kong and China. In particular, young Hong Kongers simply live a different lifestyle, engage in different behaviors, and think differently - as if they have an entirely distinct culture.

    These differences are overwhelmingly larger than the differences one observes across various Chinese megacities. This is why polls of Hong Kongers consistently find young Hong Kongers feel the least "Chinese."

    What you really should be asking yourself is: What in the f**k did the CCP do to Chinese culture that thousands of years of shared heritage mean so little?

    11 months ago # QUOTE 3 Good 1 No Good !

17. Economist
    a6f5
    

    No. It's not like that at all. You keep repeating these false arguments.
    Hong Kong was part of China from 200BC until 1842, so that's 2000 years.
    Then, for the relatively short time of 99 years, they were a British colony, until they returned once again to China.
    The Dutch don't consider themselves German because, unlike Hong Kong, they weren't part of Germany for all but a brief time in a 2200 year history.
    Hong Kongers irrationally don't consider themselves Chinese, even though their origin is Chinese, and they've been part of China for 95% of the time they've existed. This isn't comparable in any way to distinct European countries.

    Because modern "Chinese" population is bastardized with northern nomadic genes. HKgers, and Cantonese in general, have a different "Southern" culture. It's like asking why the Dutch don't consider themselves German. The Liangguang area should have seceded a long time ago like us Vietnamese did.
    

    Stupid argument. Hong Kong was little more than a handful of fishing villages before the British takeover. Hong Kong developed as a culturally distinct region entirely under British rule, so it's not surprising that HKers feel they have little in common with mainland China.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 4 Good 2 No Good !

18. Economist
    a70a
    

    ^ also, a very large proportion of people in HK ran away from China because they didn't want to be there (or their descendants)

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

19. Economist
    2d7b
    

    Because they believe they are British? lol

    11 months ago # QUOTE 1 Good 0 No Good !

20. Economist
    bae9
    

    No. It's not like that at all. You keep repeating these false arguments.
    Hong Kong was part of China from 200BC until 1842, so that's 2000 years.
    Then, for the relatively short time of 99 years, they were a British colony, until they returned once again to China.
    The Dutch don't consider themselves German because, unlike Hong Kong, they weren't part of Germany for all but a brief time in a 2200 year history.
    Hong Kongers irrationally don't consider themselves Chinese, even though their origin is Chinese, and they've been part of China for 95% of the time they've existed. This isn't comparable in any way to distinct European countries.

    Because modern "Chinese" population is bastardized with northern nomadic genes. HKgers, and Cantonese in general, have a different "Southern" culture. It's like asking why the Dutch don't consider themselves German. The Liangguang area should have seceded a long time ago like us Vietnamese did.
    

    Stupid argument. Hong Kong was little more than a handful of fishing villages before the British takeover. Hong Kong developed as a culturally distinct region entirely under British rule, so it's not surprising that HKers feel they have little in common with mainland China.

    Retarded argument.

    How one "feels" doesn't change their ethnicity. 2nd or 3rd generation Chinese Americans certainly don't feel they have anything in common with mainland China, but they would never deny they are ethnically Chinese.

    Yet HK'rs, who have been part of China for 2000 years, insult anyone who suggests they are ethnically Chinese, and rabidly deny their Chinese ethnicity.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 4 Good 2 No Good !

Reply »