Hong Kong 'Umbrella' protesters found guilty of public nuisance

Numerous countries in the 20th century (China, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, even USA) have at some point either locked their people away in concentration camps, arrested them for dubious reasons, etc. Millions have been starved to death with no way to defend themselves or grow food.

Such a world does not exist anymore of course just 70 years later, however the culture in my opinion persists-- local authorities continue to feel they have the right to force and intimidation for even the most pedestrian of investigations now, such as for comments made online, rather than for murder.

In an alternate world where the New Territories had their lease renewed, they probably would remained semi autonomous and any kind of full on independence would agitate China. I don't think they would have sought to isolate other nations over recognizing HK as PRC territory as the UK wields a bit of weight, but you probably would have seen some measures put forth that would have at least required private entities operating in China to treat HK as an extension of Chinese territory, much like what goes on today with Taiwan.

What about what the people of Hong Kong want?

European imperialism was bad. Therefore any criticism of contemporary repression is support of historical imperialism. This is a non sequitur.

Meanwhile, during those 100 years, a new, distinct, non Chinese culture developed. Hong Kong people speak a different language than mainland, have different food, culture references and desires.

Jordan was created in 1921. Israel was created in 1948.

Most people agree that these countries have distinct cultures, and are younger than Hong Kong.

Unsure why you'd assume it would be (it's not) any different for Hong Kong, but would like to hear why.

I thought HK spoke Cantonese? At least, until the PRC enforces Mandarin. It's a tactic with a long history - replace a people's language with your own.

I guess I'll be honest here as I spent way too long trying to come up with a response as your comment rattled a part of me, the part that gets a touch emotional when walking across the square where the shadow of the Goddess of Democracy once graced. Where those same stones were later soaked in the blood of men and women who only sought to voice their displeasure in the actions of their leaders.

I saw the umbrella movement as an early action to show that there will be resistance from those who do not feel that ruling party has their interest at heart. When those who lead and championed this movement were removed from the territories and sent to the mainland to be punished, it signaled that PRC was not going to change its tactics and resistance to gilded tyranny would have to charge on.

Now I have heard the arguments that you have parroted here, but this is the first time where I have someone effectively call my desire for my close friends to maintain their Democracy as a form of white supremacy. I'm sure you'll tell me that June 4th was just an uneventful day in that square and it was the West that unjustly agitated the student population.

> Handing it back was the right thing to do legally (for the new territories), morally, and historically.

Morally? Really? Think people in HK agree?

HK developed a form of democracy and is forced to rejoin a country that is comparably underdeveloped. Socially, culturally and legislatively.

I know Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, but:

> Ever since the 1950s, the Chinese government has continually threatened the British in attempting to bring any democratic developments in Hong Kong. Attempts to bring Hong Kong citizens on to the negotiating table by the British during the Sino-Anglo discussions were rejected by Beijing in the late 1980s. The last governor Chris Patten faced a great deal of opposition in changing the former colony's political system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong...

Taiwan and a bit Hong Kong show there is a third way out of communist or colonisation.

Perhaps the answer is not a return to colonialism, but to ask what the colonial governments got right. They certainly got a lot wrong, about which much discussion has already been had. Maybe it’s also worth remembering the positive lessons from that period.

I think it's important to draw a line between positive and negative colonialism. The British were legally given HK for 99 years, built infrastructure there, and turned it into a very wealthy territory that enjoyed many freedoms they would not otherwise have if it were a Chinese territory.

Even today, there is a significant number of people within HK that want to go back to British rule. Why deny what the people want?

Imagine, we must - for we can never know for sure whether such a world would indeed have been worse. They were, after all, very organized. Before the occupation, the main avenue in Copenhagen (a pair of two way streets) was chronically congested. The Germans changed it into a pair of one-way streets, doubling throughput. The change persists to this day. And as for the Holocaust - well, virtually all the Jews in German occupied territories were killed as it was. It's not clear that a German victory, whatever that means, would have resulted in many more deaths. And maybe a unified Europe, under whatever flag, might have resulted in some interesting benefits.

I'm not suggesting it would actually have been a good thing - I find the idea rather sickening. I'm just saying that any historical counterfactual is arguable, no matter how obvious it seems at first. I think it better to point at actual instances of colonialism gone wrong - indeed WW2 still qualifies, and it's not necessary for the Germans to have won to make that argument.