In what sense is Hong Kong a colonial hell-hole? (Take this not as a challenge, but as a question from someone who is unfamiliar with the idea.) Is there an underclass trapped there? Do the people in it feel trapped?
Colonial Hong Kong certainly wasn't all rosy. There was certainly vast inequity, but that had to do with global trends of poverty and essentially being almost a second-world economy at the time. Growing up in colonial Hong Kong was alright. Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive.
> Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive.
It does sound offensive. The article doesn't even try to argue this, either. Those aren't my words either, since I know next to nothing about colonial Hong Kong.
I was just commenting that a series of photos titled "Trapped" about an underclass living in coffin-sized bedrooms in Hong Kong, posted -- not by me, mind you -- in reply to your question "is there an underclass trapped there?" is both eye-opening and remarkably relevant.
Wouldn't you agree?
The original meaning of "second-world" was "behind the iron curtain." Hong Kong's being physically close to communist China might have had certain effects.
Growing up in colonial Hong Kong was alright. Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive.
As far as I know, Hong Kong is simultaneously wonderful and horrible in the same way New York City and SF are simultaneously wonderful and horrible, only more so in both directions. Given my experiences apartment hunting in SF, and other information, I'd guess that some SF housing would go almost to the same place, were it not for regulations. I've heard of a former housing regulator using his inside knowledge to convert entire houses into tiny "almost" studio apartments, which are technically still rooms.
The article reads like a subliminal hit piece against Jackie Chan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
It was the most densely populated place in the world prior to being demolished and dubbed the "City of Darkness".
And I'm sure a lot of that goes on there as well, but it's hard to track for obvious reasons.
I think that summarizes the constant emotional undertones in this article. This article strikes me as a deliberate re-spinning of a story meant to be triumphal, making it the sneakiest hit piece, ever, disguised as a think piece. I would think better of it, were it not for its reliance on such common knowledge preconceptions about "what the Chinese are like."
(Also the French and the British. But that is just what upper-crusty people are like. Human beings are highly hierarchical, and this expresses itself in even the most hardline Marxist states. Even some of the west coast philosopher kings and queens who hang out in places like Big Sur can look down their noses at people with almost no information to prompt it.)
Which is considered by many to be a form of human trafficking. Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get out of it. I'm not entirely certain where to draw the line.
Wasn't the contract entered into by his parents?
The way I read it, he wasn't able to break free until his early-20s.
Was he kept under lock and key by armed guards willing to main or kill him to keep him from escaping? Or did he primarily think of it as working through a contract his parents had signed him up for?
I cannot conceive of any answers that would.
As someone who was a child who was sent away to school by his parents, let me tell you that they matter a great deal. (Particularly from the POV of an adult looking back vs. the experiences of a child.) They are precisely the questions that should be asked to distinguish manipulations of "Think of the children!" hysteria and genuine issues of the human rights of minors.
Is there any answer to your questions that makes indentured servitude of minors acceptable?
Of course not. But I can imagine the level of state power and impingement on private family life needed to prevent that 100%, and that would be quite horrible as well. Government should regulate the conditions under which children are kept and raised by schools. However, the degree to which someone else should decide for parents what to do also needs to take into account the rights of parents and families.
Of course. Read the whole thread as if I think the government should reserve that power. My position is that the government should use such power as sparingly as possible.
There are only two distinct choices - no government power over these conditions and therefore no regulation
False. There is a "dial" here. The question is how much government should intervene. In that, there are far more than 2 choices.
Apologies. I misunderstood and it seems we agree on the fundamental principle that the government should have such power and disagree only on it's extent, as per my other reply to another comment of yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18870396
> False. There is a "dial" here.
Which is exactly what I go on to say in the rest of the sentence you quoted - "...there is broad scope for where the threshold for intervention is set"
No one wants children to be sold into servitude. However, the state impinging into family affairs to the point where it can be 100% prevented is essentially making the state the full de-facto guardians of the children. This is the state of affairs where children are informing on their parents to the state.
It's in part up to the parents in a case like this, to determine if what they're doing is selling their children out. That should be a matter of relationships within the family. (Government should be supervising how such business treat and house children. It shouldn't be impinging itself on the relationship between parent and child for any but the most extreme circumstances.)
If so, there's no point debating with you - I find the practice morally reprehensible
Using such debate tactics is dishonest on a few levels. 1) The likelihood that you are talking to someone that reprehensible is rather small 2) The likelihood that you are not exercising the principle of charity and imposing unnecessary emotional toxicity in a nuanced discussion (to your own short-term rhetorical benefit) is rather much larger.
and yes, the systems that make such an arrangement in any way palatable are also reprehensible
There are and always will be a few horrible people who will do that to their own children. Giving over tremendous power to the state over the intimate affairs of absolutely everyone for the sake of preventing rare instances strikes me as hugely unwise. Imagine what the plight of gay teenagers in the past would have been like in an unfriendly regime of such power, where state power reached into family affairs. (Or the plight of such teenagers in totalitarian theocracies today.)
I do understand that the contract was legal. And suspect Chan's parents likely gave it great consideration. Doesn't make the practice, or the circumstances that lead to it, any more palatable to me.
Very often, the reality is quite nuanced. What are your feelings about parents who pressure children to practicing sports or music for long hours from a young age? How is such a school different? At what point should a 3rd party intervene?
Also, it seems to me that in the past (and the present!) gay teenagers had just as much (if not more) to fear from their parents than from the state. Even in totalitarian theocracies, I'd suggest that in such regimes it's often outraged parents that "out" their gay children to the state. I could be wrong.
None of those are contra points.
In these situations, government failure to intervene (and educate, and...) renders legislative protections useless.
No one would disagree that intervention at the level of preventing murder is probably a good idea. I'm sure no one would disagree that intervention by the state at the level of injections of hormones and anti-gay "therapy" would be an overreach. Preventing murder is objectively something the state should do. States that cannot maintain an monopoly on the use of force are failed states. However, the state should intervene as little as possible on things like family life. How much should the state intervene? Answering this question was the purpose of the exercise above, which you apparently missed. Take the policy and power you propose and put it into the hands of the worst state you can imagine. A policy to prevent the murder of children, if practiced correctly, would still be a good thing, even in a theocracy. (Perhaps especially there.) Once you start adding the enforcement of things like social standards and societal mores, then such power looks less palatable in the hands of the state. It's easier to see that if you imagine a horrible state.
Even in totalitarian theocracies, I'd suggest that in such regimes it's often outraged parents that "out" their gay children to the state.
This would also be a tragedy. Children outing their parents to the state would also be a tragedy.
I could be wrong.
Many of your statements are correct. What's to question is your positioning those statements as somehow contradicting my position. They do not.
e.g. in my state in my country we have "no jab, no play" laws to penalise parents (and indirectly, their children) that refuse to vaccinate their kids. Note, that in this example, vaccination is not forced, however there's plenty of stick to "encourage" desired behaviour. I think this is a valid use of the intervention power. Others disagree.
I understand what it's like to be sent away to school by one's parents to experience significant hardship. It's not a matter where one should cry out for more state intervention, lightly.
My reply does indeed answer the question, as to the part of the experience of such a child I could understand. In particular, I was severely abused by a classmate, and felt unable to ask for help. I felt a great many things about my experience, and I know this from my personal experience: The POV of the child is truly paramount. It can turn a voluntary contractual experience of privilege into a horrible coercive one, or something that someone might call "indentured servitude" into something positive. It may well be that what appear to be the exact same circumstances are one thing to one child, and the opposite to another, or that it's remembered as a mix of both.
My lived experience tell me this, and in light of that experience, your comments strike me less likely to be a genuine concern for and understanding of those experiences and more as a rhetorical tactic using people's protective feelings towards children.
A further question: Are you performing the same rhetorical tactic that you are telling me that I am performing through your anecdote?
As mortals, our experiences are limited. Having a good imagination and intuition allows us to extrapolate from these limited experiences to better understand the world we live in. Otherwise, discussions would be very limited and stilted indeed. Unless you never join in a discussion that you don't have direct (exact) personal experience in?
Being able to relate to things using personal experience is important. It is equally important to understand when an experience is distinctly different from our own and to be willing to intake new information, including recognizing nuances that causes seemingly-similar situations to become drastically different.
Which is considered by many to be a form of human trafficking.
My own family history has a lot to do with indentured servitude. If you watch Korean historical dramas, you'll find the condition described as being a "servant" but at other times, the same condition will be described as being a "slave."
In terms of being signed up as minors, exactly how do you draw the line? I went to a boarding school where they didn't let us off school grounds without getting leave.
Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get out of it. I'm not entirely certain where to draw the line.
How about physical coercion? Did 19 year old Jackie Chan consider himself a slave? Was he kept in a place through physical coercion and torture? Did he dream of jailbreaking himself out of his barracks and wire-cutting the fence and running to freedom while being chased by guards prepared to main or shoot him? Or was he thinking of it as working through a contractual debt?
The line should be firmly held at physical coercion. As always, there will be people who skirt the lines by coming up with things that have the same effect, but which are "technically not coercion."
I think minors need to be free to follow the wishes of their parents who are free to exercise authority as guardians. Interfering with that should be a human rights violation. But if the parents wish to send their kids to a boarding school, that has a long history of being a successful way of providing children with an education.
If Chan was sold into servitude by his parents, I think that's de facto slavery, you can't sell the personal autonomy of another person, not even your children.
> How about physical coercion?
Certainly. But there might be trickery involved as well, which should be considered criminal. If I offered you a well-paying job in Dubai, then when you got there told you you were only going to get paid a tenth and further charged you exorbitant rates for food and lodging, that should absolutely be considered trafficking.
I don't have all the answers. But certainly there's more to it than what we'd call kidnapping.
What would you think of a boarding school, where there is a meritocratic selection of child candidates from among primarily underprivileged families? The families that are selected receive a payment. The child is housed, schooled, and given rigorous training in a prestigious performance art.
Is there something in that which is de-facto slavery? Isn't that a description of the circumstances of Jackie Chan's family? I would agree with you, that there is significant potential in such an arrangement for abuses, but it's not a simple black&white situation for instantly considered condemnation.
you can't sell the personal autonomy of another person, not even your children
Parents often override the personal autonomy of their children "for their own good."
I don't have all the answers. But certainly there's more to it than what we'd call kidnapping.
No disagreement.
If this is a public, regulated social institution, then I see no problem with it. I don't want to say that children shouldn't be made to do work, but removing them from a family environment to be exploited absolutely draws the line. I just don't know where precisely to make that legal distinction.
> Parents often override the personal autonomy of their children "for their own good."
And that's fine. We have a fairly good understanding of what constitutes child abuse, it's the removal from the family that needs to be carefully considered.
I would rather live in a society that's free enough for private schools to be established.
I just don't know where precisely to make that legal distinction.
I think we can set objective standards for the housing and treatment of children. Objective standards make it easier for government to adjudicate fairly, and prevent the abuse of power by officials and regulators.
Even so, nothing is perfect.
If these organizations were trying to keep a low profile, then that would be cause for concern.
> I think we can set objective standards for the housing and treatment of children. Objective standards make it easier for government to adjudicate fairly, and prevent the abuse of power by officials and regulators.
We are in agreement on this point. I was merely expressing ignorance of the specific standards that I would consider to be ideal.
I disagree. Mental coercion is a thing. Also, children (and often adults too) don't have the knowledge that there exist alternatives i.e. that they have choices. Denying people that knowledge removes their agency. In the case of children they look to their parents as providers - not just of nurture but of knowledge. They trust them and often accept without question. Should instinct be seen as a failure on the child's part or a conscious agreement/submission to the conditions they are subjected to? If so, then whole areas of jurisprudence concerning minors will have to be re-written.
EDIT: spelling: their/there
No you don't. "The line should be firmly held at physical coercion," is meant as a statement of a baseline minimum. Principle of charity, please.
Mental coercion is a thing. Also, children (and often adults too) don't have the knowledge that there exist alternatives i.e. that they have choices.
Been there. I've been in the position of having a mob, powerful community leaders, and people with police connections arrayed against me, not knowing the law was actually on my side.
EDIT: last sentence - clarified my position.
^ This right here.
There are many things to say about the damages caused by colonialism, but complaining that it's not covered in a book about Chan (who got immensely successful), in Hong Kong (which became very wealthy) in the 1960/70s (while the rest of China was basically burning down) misses the mark. There is a historical context that is quite specific to Hong Kong: the majority of its population actually moved there post-WW2 to escape the troubles on the mainland. Moreover before its decades of unrest, China had been ruled by the Qing, whom most Chinese considered to also be colonisers (the Qing were Manchus who imposed their customs on the Han Chinese majority), so in that regards the British were not some sort of uniquely evil rulers, they were yet another bunch of invaders, who happened to be slightly less violent than the other ones next door.
I think that's why Chan ignored the colonialist angle: it's kind of hard to hate on a city if your family willingly moved there. And yes there is hardship and injustice, but in the rest of China people are either getting purged or are literally dying of hunger. I believe his apolitical view of that era is quite common amongst his generation: yep HK was ruled by some foreigners for a while, next chapter please.
There are some Brits who would tell you that HK developed "thanks to" the UK (I am of the opinion that when a colonised city surpasses even the UK's GDP without being granted any meaningful democratic rights, they succeeded despite your rule, not because of it). This article takes the opposite position but still implies the same thing, that Hong-Kongers were victims with little agency, which I find patronizing when in reality they where a city of refugees who brilliantly navigated a difficult era. Likewise presenting Chan's physical trauma as representative of Hong-Kong's development strikes me as completely off. Lots and lots of people accessed the middle and upper class in the 70s and 80s. Most of them were not stuntmen, it turns out. I must say this is the first Western review I see of this book, and it's the first one that brings colonialism up seemingly out of nowhere. There is a little bit of "Chan's story is not really about him, it's about... us! the Western people" euro-centrism here, IMHO.
Also, since everyone is naming their favourite Jackie Chan movie, have a look at Project A and Project A2, they're a lot of fun (A2 actually tackles some colonialism-related topics in passing).
Democracy is often cited as economically advantageous, but as Singapore demonstrates, authoritarian dictatorships are not necessarily fated to economic ruination. Sometimes authoritarian dictatorships do better than they would have under democratic rule. The trick to democracy is the results are more consistently in the middle; it's not as likely to go catastrophically wrong, but it's also not as likely to go spectacularly well. That's why we generally prefer it; it's the same reason we generally prefer compensation in the form of paychecks instead of lottery tickets. Sometimes people who play the lottery win, and sometimes authoritarian governments are effective governments.
Hong Kong during the colonial era might be another example of an non-democratic regime actually performing well. Or maybe not, I don't really know. It's hard to run a "parallel Hong-Kong experiment" to find out for sure.