Hacker News Reader

Comment by ProfessorLayton | Hacker News Reader

>The right to govern extends from the consent of the governed.

First I must say that what's happening to HK is tragic, and I very much empathize with their situation, and am not at all in agreement with how the CCP is handling this.

But this is quite the take! I don't know if you're US-based, but by that logic if the Native Americans held a referendum, they would have most certainly not allowed the U.S. government to form on their land.

This is simply a case of Big Stick Ideology, something the U.S. is quite familiar with [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology

[EDIT: No, I'm not suggesting that this is right, just making an observation]

View on HN

Yes, that is why people feel that what was done to Native Americans was wrong. By which I mean that Americans believe it was wrong. It was also 200 years ago, and no explicit treaty had been signed to another world power granting them rights (the French and Spanish sold them out).

Unless you think it was right and the Big Stick is right, then HK is more than tragic. It is a violation of international treaty and of human rights.

No, I do not think Big Stick is right.

The U.S. has a whole history with Latin America that was a lot less than 200 years ago. I'd argue that many outside of the U.S believe this policy isn't a thing of the past.

>French and Spanish sold them out

I don't find the suggestion that those that were subjugated needed rights granted to them by outside groups, including those that colonized them to begin with.

Again, I'm in agreement that this is wrong, but I also believe that "Rules for thee but not for me" is not a very productive type of diplomacy either.

If that's the case we would see an effort to reverse those wrongs by reverting all the economic benefit that America gained at the expense of Native Americans. All the land and lives taken, and all the wealth and prosperity they could have generated. The total sum if repaid would probably erase a significant part of America from the map.

So it was wrong. But clearly not wrong enough to warrant erasing America and its wealth from existence. Saying sorry and expressing regret is cheap. Actual action is expensive.

As an aside, I wonder what the psychological effects are from growing up in a nation where the public discourse is all about how the nation was unjustly founded. If a significant part of the next generation believes that America's historical foundations are rotten to the core and that its existence is a tragedy, what happens next?

> If that's the case we would see an effort to reverse those wrongs by reverting all the economic benefit that America gained at the expense of Native Americans.

Note that, like LatinX, Native Americans is something only white people say. They call themselves Indians. Activist/government terms usually end up kind of patronizing for some reason.

(And they were called Indians before people from India were called that.)

India has been used in the English language for over 1,000 years, and in Latin and before that Greek for at least 1,500 years before that, along with Indian and its equivalents in other languages.

This was of course well before anyone used the word "Indian" to refer to Native Americans.

Even before America was discovered, "the Indies"/Indians/indios was used to refer to Ethiopia as well as India. They didn't have very clear ideas of where things were but that also suggests it was just meant to refer to any tropical area.

Or you can use backformation and say it's short for Indigenous.

The name India literally derives from the Sindhu river (aka the Indus river), which became Hindu in Persian (S->H is a common sound correspondence between Sanskrit and Persian), and dropped the initial H when getting into Greek. It was also used to refer to some areas beyond India -- (i.e, modern Indonesia or the "East Indies", but the origin of it was from civilizational India.).

I've never heard of India being used to refer to Ethiopia. Ethiopia itself is a phrase of Greek origin, and dates back at least to Herodotus.

Yeah, as a neutral observer, I feel conflicted. What the CCP is doing feels wrong.

But on the other hand, China was forced to agree to the HK situation particularly since they were at a disadvantage militarily and economically to the British empire.

China (CCP) would understandably not be in a mood to comply with agreements they felt coerced into.

I genuinely don't understand the full situation, and I'm not trying to imply that the CCP is in the right.

I'm just trying to understand if the whole "bullied into a disadvantaged agreement" is a valid world view to take.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com