Jump to content

AF needs funding again

- - - - -

Hong Kong - Part of Britain or China?


502 replies to this topic

Poll: Hong Kong (390 member(s) have cast votes)

Which do you prefer HK to be under?

  1. Britain (120 votes [30.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.77%

  2. China (270 votes [69.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 69.23%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#481 Anime_X

    Coke Addict, mmm Coca Cola

  • Forum Crew
  • 3,280 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 08:35 PM

But how can non Hkers judge if British rule in HK was good or bad? I don't recall discontent amongst the HKers, as I recall, they were happy with British rule and they were unhappy that HK was handed back to China.

HK was given the opportunities by the British to develop in a free and fair area. The ONLY reason HK has freedom of press and freedom to protest is because of the British. In China, are there any success stories? No...... Proves that if it wasn't for the oportunities given to HK then HK would not be the place it is today. Also how comes HK only became successful when it was under British rule not before?

If it wasn't for the British then HK would be a normal Chinese city that most people outside of China would never have heard of.

Well HK was a British Colony and there is nothing wrong with having someone British running HK. Also HKers were 100% ok with that fact too...

Britain is also better at running territories then countries like America because Britain has lots of experience of colonising countries, after all, Britain had the largest empire in history at one time.....

The test of success is really how the locals who actually live in HK think and not what foreigners from outside of HK thinks. Same can be said for places like Iraq and Afghanistan, what a mess those countries turned into and how badly managed was their post war process was.... If you compare to HK, before the hand over, HKers were happy with being a British colony and happy with the way HK was run....

HKers are still enjoying a lot of freedoms that people in any other Chinese cities do not have and they can thank the British for that. China can learn a thing or 2 from the freedoms that ppl in HK have but ppl over the rest of China do not....

Also on a lighter note, the brits brought sports and horse racing to HK, so now ppl can win or lose big time on horse racing lol.....

#482 MrCritique

    Asian Fanatic

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,020 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:22 PM

View PostAnime_X, on 10 January 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

But how can non Hkers judge if British rule in HK was good or bad? I don't recall discontent amongst the HKers, as I recall, they were happy with British rule and they were unhappy that HK was handed back to China.


If that were the case, then how do you know the real collective psyche of the HK people? Did they all report to you how they felt about British rule vs. Chinese rule?

View PostAnime_X, on 10 January 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

If it wasn't for the British then HK would be a normal Chinese city that most people outside of China would never have heard of.


For more than a century that the Brits colonized HK, nobody had paid much attention or know where the tiny island was. The rise of HK coincided with the fall of China to the CCP, as the rest world who wished to do business with China had to go through HK. Also, the transplanting of the Shanghai economic power to HK after 1949 also had also contributed to the development of the city. Even today, nearly all of HK's business tycoons are Shanghainese by origin.

View PostAnime_X, on 10 January 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

Well HK was a British Colony and there is nothing wrong with having someone British running HK. Also HKers were 100% ok with that fact too...
.....

Wow, I guess had America not entered the war, the UK would certainly be in German hands by now and there would be absolutely nothing wrong with having someone German running Britain. Oh wait, the Royal Family is German...

View PostAnime_X, on 10 January 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:


Britain is also better at running territories then countries like America because Britain has lots of experience of colonising countries, after all, Britain had the largest empire in history at one time.....
..

I have nothing to add to this one and am just glad that America is not in the colonialism business, which often is a brutal and immoral proposition predicated upon the premise of one-way exploitation.

View PostAnime_X, on 10 January 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

The test of success is really how the locals who actually live in HK think and not what foreigners from outside of HK thinks. Same can be said for places like Iraq and Afghanistan, what a mess those countries turned into and how badly managed was their post war process was.... If you compare to HK, before the hand over, HKers were happy with being a British colony and happy with the way HK was run....
.....

I fail to see comparison of HK to Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are indepedently soverign nations.

View PostAnime_X, on 10 January 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:


Also on a lighter note, the brits brought sports and horse racing to HK, so now ppl can win or lose big time on horse racing lol.....

Ah, first it was opium and then it was horse racing. So the Brits had been bent on corrupting the bodies and minds of the Chinese people with their introduction of odious vices. LOL!!

#483 Anime_X

    Coke Addict, mmm Coca Cola

  • Forum Crew
  • 3,280 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:46 AM

Well the fact there was a lack of support in HK news media and lack of pro china gatherings nearing the hand over is proof that people in HK prefered to be under British control and not Chinese control. The fact that people in HK can search for anything they want online and not get restricted search results, they can go protest about any topic they want, journalists are free to cover any story, they have Britain to thank for that and thats a good thing that you cannot deny.

Lots of people voted with their feet about the hand over and they left HK for good, like for instance some of my relatives did that.

HK was peaceful during British control. People in HK were happy with the way things were and that is the important factor. If the people were deeply unhappy with the way the British were running things then they would have protested, started hate campaigns and caused trouble. But it never happened.

Now in HK people in HK are annoyed at how many mainlanders are moving to HK. Also so many mainalnders are having babies in HK that its caused a lack of maternitry wards and some HKers couldnt get places in hospital to give birth. Also I see on TV, lots of protests in HK about many things and they are mainly Chinese government related issues. The recent protest I heard of is about the guy running HK at the moment, apparently hes too close to the chinese government.... Non of these problems happened under british control.... Hkers are lucky they can protest in the streets about it, people in other areas of China wouldnt be able to...

The idea of freedom and democracy is something the British did instill into HKers, the many protests you see in HK these days are down to HKers fears of the mainland taking away some of their freedoms.

All I can say is, if the Brits never took control of HK, would HK be the famous and rich place that it is now? or would it be another Chinese city somewhere in China?

Also for the off topic bits....

Well thats the nature of empires throughtout history. The occupied lands are there to benefit the heart of the empire. But you make it sound like the opium wars and the old days of the British Empire was last year or something lol.... Can you really use 21st century morals to judge 19th century society? Back then thats how countries all over Europe behaved and there wasnt anything wrong about it from 19th century western way of looking at things. Its the same when it comes to italians looking back at the Roman Empire....

But personally I think that American bases all over the world is a modern form of imperialism... But thats just my view.

You said how is afghanistan and iraq is relevant. Well it shows how hard it is to keep control of people and lands. At first before a government was formed in these nations, America was essentially managing their countries for them. Even though America was there armed with great intentions, gave them money and help, the locals just saw it as some occupation and taking action.... Are the locals in those countries greatful to Americans huge contribution to them? No. America sacrified money, soliders, liberated them from bad regimes and the locals dont care. Its relevant because if the British mismanaged HK then it would end in disaster because the people of HK will rise up. But Britian from its empire days has learned what to do and what not to do from experience.

lol, well isn't it good that horse racing in HK replaced opium lol.....

But honestly Im not pro this or anti this.... The British Empire was both good and bad, I admit the good and bad in the empire. Bad things would be the liberating Africa and then turning them into slaves. The opium war and even selling opium to China was wrong. But thats greed and 19th century capitalism for you. Also all countries do both good and bad, same can be said for America, did slavery end by then?

But overall HK gained a lot then lost due to it being a colony of Britain. Also when you go to anybody and talk about HK, people tend to have a positive view on HK, but if you did the same with China then its not all good... Unless the locals in HK were protesting non stop againts British rule and lots of discontent amongst the locals of HK then I would say that HKers were happy with the way the British handled HK.

Edit:

Also judge which country is/was better for HK by the actions of the people of HK. Look at the issues the news media brings up, look at the protests during Chinese rule now and during the times of the British in HK, actions speaks louder then words.

Edited by Anime_X, 11 January 2013 - 01:02 AM.


#484 teddyc

    faq.asianfanatics.net

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 07:30 AM

View PostAnime_X, on 11 January 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

Well the fact there was a lack of support in HK news media and lack of pro china gatherings nearing the hand over is proof that people in HK prefered to be under British control and not Chinese control. The fact that people in HK can search for anything they want online and not get restricted search results, they can go protest about any topic they want, journalists are free to cover any story, they have Britain to thank for that and thats a good thing that you cannot deny.

Lots of people voted with their feet about the hand over and they left HK for good, like for instance some of my relatives did that.

HK was peaceful during British control. People in HK were happy with the way things were and that is the important factor. If the people were deeply unhappy with the way the British were running things then they would have protested, started hate campaigns and caused trouble. But it never happened.

Now in HK people in HK are annoyed at how many mainlanders are moving to HK. Also so many mainalnders are having babies in HK that its caused a lack of maternitry wards and some HKers couldnt get places in hospital to give birth. Also I see on TV, lots of protests in HK about many things and they are mainly Chinese government related issues. The recent protest I heard of is about the guy running HK at the moment, apparently hes too close to the chinese government.... Non of these problems happened under british control.... Hkers are lucky they can protest in the streets about it, people in other areas of China wouldnt be able to...

The idea of freedom and democracy is something the British did instill into HKers, the many protests you see in HK these days are down to HKers fears of the mainland taking away some of their freedoms.

All I can say is, if the Brits never took control of HK, would HK be the famous and rich place that it is now? or would it be another Chinese city somewhere in China?

Also for the off topic bits....

Well thats the nature of empires throughtout history. The occupied lands are there to benefit the heart of the empire. But you make it sound like the opium wars and the old days of the British Empire was last year or something lol.... Can you really use 21st century morals to judge 19th century society? Back then thats how countries all over Europe behaved and there wasnt anything wrong about it from 19th century western way of looking at things. Its the same when it comes to italians looking back at the Roman Empire....

But personally I think that American bases all over the world is a modern form of imperialism... But thats just my view.

You said how is afghanistan and iraq is relevant. Well it shows how hard it is to keep control of people and lands. At first before a government was formed in these nations, America was essentially managing their countries for them. Even though America was there armed with great intentions, gave them money and help, the locals just saw it as some occupation and taking action.... Are the locals in those countries greatful to Americans huge contribution to them? No. America sacrified money, soliders, liberated them from bad regimes and the locals dont care. Its relevant because if the British mismanaged HK then it would end in disaster because the people of HK will rise up. But Britian from its empire days has learned what to do and what not to do from experience.

lol, well isn't it good that horse racing in HK replaced opium lol.....

But honestly Im not pro this or anti this.... The British Empire was both good and bad, I admit the good and bad in the empire. Bad things would be the liberating Africa and then turning them into slaves. The opium war and even selling opium to China was wrong. But thats greed and 19th century capitalism for you. Also all countries do both good and bad, same can be said for America, did slavery end by then?

But overall HK gained a lot then lost due to it being a colony of Britain. Also when you go to anybody and talk about HK, people tend to have a positive view on HK, but if you did the same with China then its not all good... Unless the locals in HK were protesting non stop againts British rule and lots of discontent amongst the locals of HK then I would say that HKers were happy with the way the British handled HK.

Edit:

Also judge which country is/was better for HK by the actions of the people of HK. Look at the issues the news media brings up, look at the protests during Chinese rule now and during the times of the British in HK, actions speaks louder then words.

Hong Kong peaceful during British rule? Check your facts, because you're wrong. Look at the riots in 1967. It was absolute brutality.

Hong Kong was a fishing village when it was ceded to Britain back in the 1800s. Back then, Guangzhou Shanghai and Tianjin were the major business ports of that country. Had the Qing Empire not collapse, Chinese commerce would have been focused on these three cities. Even after WW2, Hong Kong was a quiet little town considered only for its stability as it was not controlled by Chinese warlords. Hong Kong wasn't a booming centre of commerce until communism swept over China and wealthy families from Guangzhou and Shanghai fled China for a place where their wealth will not be wiped out.

Sometimes I really wished we could go back in time and see the roaring 1920s. Back then, Shanghai was considered the Paris of the Orient!

#485 MrCritique

    Asian Fanatic

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,020 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:59 PM

View PostAnime_X, on 11 January 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

The idea of freedom and democracy is something the British did instill into HKers, the many protests you see in HK these days are down to HKers fears of the mainland taking away some of their freedoms.


If this were so, then how come HK'ers have yet to experience a truly free election? In a truly democratic society, protests are the last resorts for gettng your voices heard. The most common vehicle is through the ballot box.

View PostAnime_X, on 11 January 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

But personally I think that American bases all over the world is a modern form of imperialism... But thats just my view.

You said how is afghanistan and iraq is relevant. Well it shows how hard it is to keep control of people and lands. At first before a government was formed in these nations, America was essentially managing their countries for them. Even though America was there armed with great intentions, gave them money and help, the locals just saw it as some occupation and taking action.... Are the locals in those countries greatful to Americans huge contribution to them? No. America sacrified money, soliders, liberated them from bad regimes and the locals dont care. Its relevant because if the British mismanaged HK then it would end in disaster because the people of HK will rise up. But Britian from its empire days has learned what to do and what not to do from experience.
.

If this were America's version imperialism, then I think the country could rest her collective conscience very well as compared to the British brand that was marked by violent conquest, one-way exploitation and departure after completely depleted the colonies' resources (as in India and So.Africa).

View PostAnime_X, on 11 January 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

Well thats the nature of empires throughtout history. The occupied lands are there to benefit the heart of the empire. But you make it sound like the opium wars and the old days of the British Empire was last year or something lol.... Can you really use 21st century morals to judge 19th century society? Back then thats how countries all over Europe behaved and there wasnt anything wrong about it from 19th century western way of looking at things. Its the same when it comes to italians looking back at the Roman Empire....


If you tried to use this logically-challenged "relative morality" defense of imperialism, then you'd have no right to criticize what China is doing right now.

#486 Anime_X

    Coke Addict, mmm Coca Cola

  • Forum Crew
  • 3,280 posts

Posted 11 January 2013 - 07:13 PM

Quote

if this were so, then how come HK'ers have yet to experience a truly free election? In a truly democratic society, protests are the last resorts for gettng your voices heard. The most common vehicle is through the ballot box.

Well can people in China vote? If China had their way completely over HK, they would impose mainland laws and legislation and HK would be worse off then before the handover. At least free press, free speech and etc were protected by the British. Did people in HK protest over not having a right to vote for their own leader? If the people are content then thats what matters. If the people of HK wanted to vote for their own leader then yes Britain would let them vote for their leader because what Britain has learned from its long history of occcupation is that you have to keep the locals happy otherwise all hell breaks lose.

When it comes to western nations and denying people the right to vote. Well bear in mind that Guam (a pacific island nation that became part of the USA after WW2), the people of Guam despite being US citizens, they are denied the right to vote in the US Presidential elections. The senator representing Guam can take part in the Senate but is denied the right to vote on any bills..... Even right now 2013, Guam has no voting power.... So should people judge the UK that harshly on HK?

Quote

If this were America's version imperialism, then I think the country could rest her collective conscience very well as compared to the British brand that was marked by violent conquest, one-way exploitation and departure after completely depleted the colonies' resources (as in India and So.Africa).

But was all this a recent event? Oh, it was centurys ago now, the world was a different place back then for everybody. One thing historians dont do is judge past events with modern day standards. But you are using modern day srandards and morality to judge events way back in history when the world was a different place. But back then if you wasn't tough then you would become the occupied. When it comes to the 20th century, the UK wasn't all that bad to be honest, if you compare it to Japan during WW2, Germany during WW2. Well then again when it comes to harshness, America is not that innocent during 20th century either, im not going to name any events but you are a smart guy, you can probably guess....

Also the ex british colonies, they dont have hard feelings towards the British, not even HK. The fact that they are all (except for HK) still members of the Commonwealth and they are members under their own free will means they are on good terms with the UK and still wants a relationship with the uk. Also a lot of countries still have the Queen as their head of state and its not forced on them, they are happy to still recognise the Queen as their head of state....

But overall, the fact that there hasnt been any cities in China that became as rich and successfull as HK before Chinas economic rise means that HKs success was down to a combination of the HKers and the opportunities provided to them by being a UK colony.... Now that HK is part of China again, the people of HK are now fighting to keep their freedoms because slowly china is trying to take them away one by one. China has introduced lots of issues for HK and people of HK are less content now....

Edited by Anime_X, 11 January 2013 - 07:15 PM.


#487 teddyc

    faq.asianfanatics.net

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:54 AM

View PostAnime_X, on 11 January 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

Well can people in China vote?

If the British were looking out for HKers interests why didn't they demand universal suffrage for HKers as a condition for the handover? Clearly, the British had other priorities on their agenda and was using HK as a token to fulfill whatever other demands they may have wanted.

#488 MrCritique

    Asian Fanatic

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,020 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 10:42 PM

View PostAnime_X, on 11 January 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

Well can people in China vote?

They certainly can and do. Go better educate yourself on this.

View PostAnime_X, on 11 January 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

If China had their way completely over HK, they would impose mainland laws and legislation and HK would be worse off then before the handover. At least free press, free speech and etc were protected by the British. Did people in HK protest over not having a right to vote for their own leader? If the people are content then thats what matters. If the people of HK wanted to vote for their own leader then yes Britain would let them vote for their leader because what Britain has learned from its long history of occcupation is that you have to keep the locals happy otherwise all hell breaks lose

You are making a hyperbolic statement out of a hypothesis that is based on an assumption; in other words, you are trying to validate an opinion by supporting it with another opinion. It adds no value to the discussion on hand. In fact, your underlying assumption has already been challenged by the facts posted by TeddyC.

View PostAnime_X, on 11 January 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

When it comes to western nations and denying people the right to vote. Well bear in mind that Guam (a pacific island nation that became part of the USA after WW2), the people of Guam despite being US citizens, they are denied the right to vote in the US Presidential elections. The senator representing Guam can take part in the Senate but is denied the right to vote on any bills..... Even right now 2013, Guam has no voting power....

A specious point that is totally irrelevant to the discussion and reflect your lack of understanding of the matter. Any educated person would know that there are no distinctions in American citizenship and all Americans enjoy equal treatment by the laws and certain inalienable rights such as the right to vote. Being Americans, the people of Guam certainly enjoy the same rights as any Americans elsewhere and none have been denied to them.

What you are confusing, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is a procedural and not a legal matter. American cannot participate in Presidential election from Guam because legally it is only a Territory and not a State. However,the people of Guam can still exerxise their right to vote simply by registering themselves in one of the 50 States, mostly likely Hawaii. Referendum on making Guam a State or a part of the State of Hawaii had been made in the past but the people of Guam voted it down and have been content to remain territory status.

View PostAnime_X, on 11 January 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

But was all this a recent event? Oh, it was centurys ago now, the world was a different place back then for everybody. One thing historians dont do is judge past events with modern day standards. But you are using modern day srandards and morality to judge events way back in history when the world was a different place. But back then if you wasn't tough then you would become the occupied. When it comes to the 20th century, the UK wasn't all that bad to be honest, if you compare it to Japan during WW2, Germany during WW2. Well then again when it comes to harshness, America is not that innocent during 20th century either, im not going to name any events but you are a smart guy, you can probably guess....


One thing historians do is not to judge past events period. Their main charge is to confirm the occurence of past events based on known facts, not assumptions.

However, people do judge history, and often by moral principles or standards that transcend time. The Jewish Holocaust is judged in the same way now as when it happened some 60 years ago. And it will be judged in the same way say 100 years from now. The Brits did not invade and colonize South Africa out of fear that the Zulu would have colonize them if they had not taken the first strike. So let's not go down this slippery slope of "relative morality".

In fact, to her credit, during the "Handover" negotiation with China in the early 1980s, Britiain did own up to the fact that her acquisition of HK had no moral ground. That admission resulted in the complete handover of HK back to China as opposed to just the leased territories of Kowloon and New Territiory.

View PostAnime_X, on 11 January 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

But overall, the fact that there hasnt been any cities in China that became as rich and successfull as HK before Chinas economic rise means that HKs success was down to a combination of the HKers and the opportunities provided to them by being a UK colony....

I believe TeddyC already has refuted this point in one of his post.

Look, I agree that no country is perfect but I fail in seeing the logics of your constant extoling the virtue of the UK while at the same breath disparaging countries like China and the US based on all sorts of mistated facts and curiously illogical assumptions. Frankly, I am a bit tired of popping the all the nonsensical ballons you have flown.

Edited by MrCritique, 14 January 2013 - 05:42 AM.


#489 Anime_X

    Coke Addict, mmm Coca Cola

  • Forum Crew
  • 3,280 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:13 PM

Quote

They certainly can and do. Go better educate yourself on this.

I mean they cannot vote on who leads their country.

Quote

American cannot participate in Presidential election from Guam because legally it is only a Territory and not a State.

Well Guam is officially a territory of the USA and not a US state, this means Guam is a colony of the US. So is it really wrong for the British to have/had colonies like HK for instance.

Well if my memory serves me correctly, didn't you intentionally attack the UK in a very unfair manner.

Also nobody in the UK would see the opium wars as right, it shows that the world has changed, but you keep on mentioning past events like its recent history and then use modern day values to judge a world thats long past. But when it comes to did the British help HK set on the path to success, I would say yes. The morality of how HK became a British colony is no relevant.

But anyways, HK is only the rich and successful place that it is today due to it being a British Colony in the past. The people of HK have benefited from it rather then suffered or held back.

Edited by Anime_X, 15 January 2013 - 06:24 PM.


#490 MrCritique

    Asian Fanatic

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,020 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:21 PM

View PostAnime_X, on 14 January 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

I mean they cannot vote on who leads their country.
Glad you finally have bothered to check the facts; however, it is a bit late to back-pedal from your erroneous point. The fact of the matter is that even the Chinese had the right to vote however limited and rigged the election might be. That is more than their HK brethren under British rule.

View PostAnime_X, on 14 January 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

Well Guam is officially a territory of the USA and not a US state, this means Guam is a colony of the US. So is it really wrong for the British to have/had colonies like HK for instance. .
A Territory = colony? Are you out of your mind? Do all native residents of a colony enjoy full citizenship (of the colonizing country) and a degree of self governing? Do the colonizing country put in any resources into the colony's development as opposed to just reap the benefits? Very disappointing! I thought you were on the path toward enlightenment and then you served up this piece of absurdity.

View PostAnime_X, on 14 January 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

Well if my memory serves me correctly, didn't you intentionally attack the UK in a very unfair manner.
Well, perhaps let me help in fully restoring your memory by pointing out that you first dragged the US into this discussion-wholly unnecessarily if I may add- as the "villains or international buffoon" in order to extol Britain's finer qualities as a contrast. It seems to be a tendency of yours to disparage the US (and China for that matter) in every chance you get even under the most extraneous circumstances.

Edited by MrCritique, 15 January 2013 - 10:53 PM.


#491 MrCritique

    Asian Fanatic

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,020 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:51 PM

View PostAnime_X, on 14 January 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

Also nobody in the UK would see the opium wars as right, it shows that the world has changed, but you keep on mentioning past events like its recent history and then use modern day values to judge a world thats long past. But when it comes to did the British help HK set on the path to success, I would say yes. The morality of how HK became a British colony is no relevant.

But anyways, HK is only the rich and successful place that it is today due to it being a British Colony in the past. The people of HK have benefited from it rather then suffered or held back.

Any logical or educated person would tell you that framing an issue in context is very important in rendering an accurate assessment. In the case of evaluating Britain's role on HK's success, one has to evaluate it from a historical context in order to arrive to a fair assessment, How Britain acquired Hk had an impact on how they run the territory which eventually provided insights into whether they were solely repsonsible for HK's prosperity. An "off the cuff" supposition based on some isolated events in time can often lead to some ludicrous conclusion. For example, one notes that Al Capone used to give generously to some charity; therefore, without considering everything he did in context, one would have concluded that Al Capone is a great person and a productive member of his society.

In fact, teddyC has challenged your supposition based on this methodolgy to which you have yet to respond.

Edited by Anime_X, 22 January 2013 - 10:46 PM.
removed off topic bits


#492 absurdworld

    faq.asianfanatics.net

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts

Posted 15 March 2013 - 02:22 PM

Hong Kong is part of China because the people in it are Chinese. That piece of land were first landed on by Chinese.

#493 A-Hayl

    faq.asianfanatics.net

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 200 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 01:00 PM

There's something you might expect from a Hong Kong poll:



#494 UnstoppableElmo

    faq.asianfanatics.net

  • AF-newbie
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 03:04 AM

View PostskYmaster, on 03 July 2007 - 12:39 PM, said:

Well, okay, everyone here is saying that Hong Kong was part of China long ago and the Britain invaded it. Haha, wrong, wrong and wrong. Before Hong Kong was part of China, it did belong to Vietnamese empire. There were vietnamese poeple living there. So, China invaded Hong Kong from vietnamese people.

Are you on drugs? Since when does getting conquered by Zhao Tuo (Qin General) and HIS Nanyue Kingdom (Capital in Canton) qualify Vietnamese to claim his kingdom? Let alone all Yue as Vietnamese?

#495 teddyc

    faq.asianfanatics.net

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts

Posted 05 May 2013 - 07:40 AM

I honestly don't think Hong Kongers want a white guy sent in from Britain to be their Governor and have senior civil service positioned be headed by a white guy either. Essentially turning Hong Kong back into what it was back in the 1950s. Hong Kongers in fact want a Hong Kong that was in 1997 with senior civil service positions headed by Hong Kongers and elect their own Chief Executive. This all points to an independent Hong Kong rather than a colony under Britain.

I would feel that an independent Hong Kong, like an independent Singapore would be most beneficial both for Hong Kongers as well as Mainland Chinese. Hong Kong can continue to be China's bridge into the world and vice versa. As much as China may think that it's ready to welcome the world into its country, many businesses around the world are actually afraid of doing so or feel that the justice system in China is too premature to foster any business that is use to the rule of law. Even in today's time, a key problem with China is that it is a country ruled by man and not by law. It puts communist party leaders, their friends and families at the head of the pecking order for anything and puts them above the law. When a group of people are above the law, it only puts pressure on everyone beneath them to revolt, and it will only be a matter of time before the streets of every major city in China will have riots to push down the government. This is something that the CCP knows and wants to avoid at all costs.

#496 Dragonborn

    faq.asianfanatics.net

  • AF-n00b
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 10 May 2013 - 05:39 AM

Not to mention, Ireland breaking away form Britian and Scotland calling for a referendum to separate. I found it ironic we have some Hkers glorifying British rule. I'm not sure if this this is some kind of inferiority complex or what, but begging another country to colonize and rule over them again sounds absurd considering under British rule everything was govern by them. Never were Hkers given the option to self-govern or any true democracy given during this period. It really befuddles me what group of people would ever subject themselves to be ruled by another nation. I would have given more respect if HKers had wanted independence and self-govern themselves and actually felt proud of who they are. But begging for the British to tell them what to manage their lives? No self-respecting group would ever admit that.


View Postteddyc, on 05 May 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

I honestly don't think Hong Kongers want a white guy sent in from Britain to be their Governor and have senior civil service positioned be headed by a white guy either. Essentially turning Hong Kong back into what it was back in the 1950s. Hong Kongers in fact want a Hong Kong that was in 1997 with senior civil service positions headed by Hong Kongers and elect their own Chief Executive. This all points to an independent Hong Kong rather than a colony under Britain.


#497 teddyc

    faq.asianfanatics.net

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:24 AM

View Postbachle, on 10 May 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

my(inuit people) land the canada got stolen by them the british, still today i cant have an independent nation. talk about saint...

If the inuit people had an independent nation, the inuit people would not benefit but only the chiefs. Just look at the territories in Canada.

#498 HongKonger

    faq.asianfanatics.net

  • AF-n00b
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 24 September 2013 - 05:04 PM

Hong Kongers are not Chinese, we don't even look like the people living in Beijing and Shandong. They are much taller than us, heck northern Chinese are the tallest in Asia, and they have much lighter skin than us too. We Hong Kongers are darker, shorter (similar to Japanese), and look Southeast Asian. Such as our wide nostrils and big droopy eyes vs their narrow taller nose and angled eyes. We speak Cantonese, they speak Mandarin. We love Britain and they hate western imperialism. Geographically, Hong Kong is in the deep deep south of 'China' and should honestly just be considered Southeast Asia. I feel much closer in looks to the Vietnamese and Thais than I do to Chinese living in Shandong.

#499 balla1225

    faq.asianfanatics.net

  • AF-n00b
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 11:49 AM

View PostHongKonger, on 24 September 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

Hong Kongers are not Chinese, we don't even look like the people living in Beijing and Shandong. They are much taller than us, heck northern Chinese are the tallest in Asia, and they have much lighter skin than us too. We Hong Kongers are darker, shorter (similar to Japanese), and look Southeast Asian. Such as our wide nostrils and big droopy eyes vs their narrow taller nose and angled eyes. We speak Cantonese, they speak Mandarin. We love Britain and they hate western imperialism. Geographically, Hong Kong is in the deep deep south of 'China' and should honestly just be considered Southeast Asia. I feel much closer in looks to the Vietnamese and Thais than I do to Chinese living in Shandong.
I heard that most hong konger are descendant of vietnamese who got left behind when the han dynasty started to take over southern china and kick their followers down to what we known as ''vietnam'' today.

#500 Goldencarp

    Asian Fanatic

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,294 posts

Posted 26 November 2013 - 10:29 PM

View PostHongKonger, on 24 September 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:


Such as our wide nostrils and big droopy eyes vs their narrow taller nose and angled eyes.

I feel much closer in looks to the Vietnamese and Thais than I do to Chinese living in Shandong.

View Postballa1225, on 14 November 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

I heard that most hong konger are descendant of vietnamese who got left behind when the han dynasty started to take over southern china and kick their followers down to what we known as ''vietnam'' today.

That's insulting. Droopy eyes and wide nostrils? and looking Viet? I don't think so

#501 cyverse

    faq.asianfanatics.net

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 91 posts

Posted 26 November 2013 - 10:51 PM

View PostHongKonger, on 24 September 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

Hong Kongers are not Chinese, we don't even look like the people living in Beijing and Shandong. They are much taller than us, heck northern Chinese are the tallest in Asia, and they have much lighter skin than us too. We Hong Kongers are darker, shorter (similar to Japanese), and look Southeast Asian. Such as our wide nostrils and big droopy eyes vs their narrow taller nose and angled eyes. We speak Cantonese, they speak Mandarin. We love Britain and they hate western imperialism. Geographically, Hong Kong is in the deep deep south of 'China' and should honestly just be considered Southeast Asia. I feel much closer in looks to the Vietnamese and Thais than I do to Chinese living in Shandong.

But Cantonese people don't look anything like the British either. Cantonese people don't have blonde, red, or brown hair by nature, they're shorter, skin darker, and their eyes are not blue, green, or gray. From your logic, are you suggesting that HK is part of Vietnam because HK people look a lot like Vietnamese people, who are their ancestors? Or maybe HK is part of Thailand for the same reason?

If I remember correctly, HK was originally part of China but China was forced to hand it over to the British after the Opium wars. The British used HK as one of their ports to sell opium to Chinese people, who became addicted. HK people might love the British, but I wonder if the British feel the same. The British view the Chinese people as another big market to pitch their products - it's just business to them.

#502 SkyyEcstasyy

    faq.asianfanatics.net

  • AF-newbie
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 20 December 2013 - 03:59 AM

Since it is under heavy British influence before given back to China, I can't really say Hong Kong is part of either China or Britain.
I'm quite thankful that Hong Kong has it's own special government, not just for their well-being, but the fact that they're the only
Cantonese-majority hub in China. Sure the entire Guangdong region speaks it's native Cantonese language, but Hong Kong is
the only "region" that actively maintains that Cantonese culture, and it's still going strong.

Instead of picking sides of whether it should belong to China or Britain, I'd rather say Hong Kong has their own thing going on.

#503 cyverse

    faq.asianfanatics.net

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 91 posts

Posted 21 December 2013 - 07:11 PM

I agree HK has its own thing going on. It's good that they are able to keep their own form of government. I also want to add that it's not healthy to form long-term, or even perpetual, alliances with any one country. It's also not in their best interests to hold long-term grudges against any nation. Friends could become enemies, and enemies become friends, in the future. HK should act in the best interests of its citizens.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users