>Why aren't we talking more about the history of HK's creation, namely the Opium wars?

Because the people of Hong Kong have no responsibility for the Opium Wars perhaps? I'm not sure what you are actually suggesting.

>The real "crime" here is that we're so morally bankrupt and out of touch with history that all we can do is watch and tweet hashtags.

Ok, what do you want to do?

Then who does have responsibility? Surely you're not suggesting that all is forgiven and forgotten once the perpetrators are dead?

I'm suggesting that, figuratively, if you actually knew that you lived by a volcano, the emotional shock caused by its eruption could be tempered by some foresight.

The Opium Trade and Wars were evil and at a massive scale, I just don't see how that can be spun any other way. How was this ever going to turn out any differently? Like I said the only reason we're so outraged is because we obliterated every other nation to the point that they'll never be able to rise up.

Responsibility for what? Either the people of Hong Kong are entitled to their opinions and freedoms, or they are not.

I don't see why the actions of some dead British guys from 150 years ago have anything to do with whether that it true or not?

Nobody is spinning the opium wars in any way. You are the one who brought up the topic.

Responsibility for justice. Perhaps legally nothing will ever happen, but without moral justice, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". The opinions and freedoms of the Chinese in 1842 were the same as Hong Kong's are now: to remain as they were and not become part of a different nation. So if you believe that Hong Kong deserves independence now, then you need to also believe that it deserved remaining Chinese then.

I'm not an apologist for China. For example I strongly believe in the independence of Taiwan, they've clearly demonstrated through their own efforts that they are different to the mainland. They didn't have that sentiment force upon them by guns from a foreign military might.

Justice for who, right now, and on what issue? Most of your comments are very frustratingly vague. I've no real idea what specifically you are actually criticising or advising.

>They didn't have that sentiment force upon them by guns from a foreign military might.

The current population of Hong Kong didn't have their current status imposed on them by people with guns either. Yet. They, like you and I, were simply born into a political and economic environment not of their making. I think it's reasonable for any of us to have an opinion about whether having anything forced on them by guns now is acceptable or not.

For sure I don't think I've made myself clear enough, that's all on me, I'm sorry. So just for the sake of clarity let me over simplify it.

Imagine that my long-term girlfriend who worked in a coffee shop all her life found out her boss was a murderous drug dealer. Instead of quitting she becomes the company accountant thus taking a massive pay raise that I in turn benefit from. The company doesn't directly break the law but we have some vague idea that it wouldn't be as successful as it is if it wasn't for the connections the boss has. Neither I nor my girlfriend ever did or ever will do anything morally wrong. We enjoy the freedoms the extra money gives us. One day the police find out about the boss's illegal activities and it looks like the company will have to be dissolved.

In this circumstance I completely agree that I and my girlfriend have a right to feel distressed our quality of life is about to be drastically lowered. However, considering the circumstances, I have no right to be outraged at my government for not supporting my rights to indirectly enjoy the money my girlfriend gets from a company that built its niche through mafia activities.

To counter your example. Suppose your great, great grandchildren found out about that story. How relevant do you think they would find it to their decisions about their lives, assuming they have no knowledge or anything to do with drug dealing or criminal activity themselves?

You're right, it's completely irrelevant to them. But can you honestly say that the mainland Chinese great, great children have also forgotten about it? Why not? It's because it's convenient for HK to forget whilst it was a fundamentally defining moment for China that influenced the end of the Qing dynasty, the end of over 2000 years of imperial rule and the creation of the communist-based political ideologies we see today. But by your logic everyone forgets about everything given enough time? That just strikes me as naive and a form of denial.

I still don't think you understand my point. I'm not saying that HK doesn't have a right to fight. I'm saying that they're not like Taiwan or all the other peoples that naturally came to their differentiated political stance - HK simply doesn't have history and destiny on its side, so it's always going to be that much more of a struggle.

Maybe another example will make it clearer. I have the right to protest against the bear that's attacking me, but I don't have a right to ask the world to change the fundamental nature of bears as if its a matter of geopolitics. Bears will always be bears. Bear violence has nothing to do with communism or democracy. And so it's a waste of energy to entertain that idea.

I don't like what China is doing to HK, but Britain walked into bear territory. Let's not argue about how wrong bears are, let's be sober and treat bears as bears, not as symbols of anti-democracy that might somehow appeal to diplomacy.

> Responsibility for justice.

That's one of the most stupid politically correct ideas of the modern times. Thinking descendants of perpetrators owe anything to descendant of victim fails to account that, in most cases, the victims would actually have done the same than th eperpetrators had they be in the similar position of power (see slavery / natives vs europeans). It's bullshit. It's human nature that people abuse people. It's never a race/ people / specific group issue.

Justice isn't a soppy feel-good, everybody hug now thing. As the quote says, it's about the method of escaping the cycles of history. Of course descendants can't be blamed for the past, and that's not what anybody is saying. It might not be fair but the only way we can build a more peaceful future is by taking responsibility for the past. I can understand how that sounds similar to taking the blame, but it's fundamentally different.

Eg; I sure as hell didn't write the buggy code that brought down the production site. I can shout all I want that I don't owe anything to the clients, or I can just take responsibility for the fix and we all move on with our lives.

What does that got to do with anything? Why do people keep bringing centuries old examples of the shortcomings of western civilization, to apologize for the very present disregards against human rights in many non-western countries?

Specially in a case where the legacy that is being put in question is exactly the culture of respect for human rights, civil liberties and democracy brought by an Western nation, that is now under threat by an autocratic power: The central Government of China.

There is a term coined specifically for that: Whataboutism

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

My points about about native Americans and Australians could be construed as Whataboutism. But the Opium Wars aren't fodder in an equivalency argument, they are literally the very reason that HK even exists.

Again, I must repeat, I do not at all condone China's lack of respect for human rights. All I am saying is that people need to know the actual context of the situation. If HK had come into being due to centuries of mutual, conflict-free trade, then I think this would be different situation. The fact is though that HK is the legacy of a sustained, coordinated, state-level, brutal and greedy campaign to extract as much money as possible from the Chinese.

China's policy towards Hong Kong since the 1997 handover was to integrate them into China by showing how wonderful China would be and essentially convince them that they were better off being part of the Chinese mainland rather than a British colony. By 2019, though, it's become patently clear that many, if not most, people in Hong Kong have come to believe that there integration into China would amount to some sort of Chinese colonization and would destroy their heritage.

You're still doing a wrong to the people of HK by forcing them into an arrangement that they don't want, so it is in no way justified by righting previous wrongs.

Then maybe china can offer hk folks help in resettling? Ask around and see if any other country would like to take in these people who clearly don't want chinese rule?

> All I am saying is that people need to know the actual context of the situation.

The actual context of the situation is that indeed, if the British hadn't controlled Hong Kong for a time this conflict wouldn't be happening.

It wouldn't be happening, because people in Hong Kong wouldn't know what it is to live in a free democratic society as they lived in the last half a century of British "occupation", so they would just accept the human rights and personal freedoms violations of the autocratic government of China, without knowing any better.

I agree that free, democratic societies are better. I am in fact British, so I should know.

Listen, I'm genuinely interested in how you and others justify the destiny of Hong Kong. So we're in agreement that democracy is better, and for example there's a very tenuous argument that the violence the West used in Iraq was necessitated by an existing autocratic regime. However the violence used by the UK to gain HK was utterly unprompted and motivated purely by economic greed. Democracy may well be the better choice for HK, but in what way does it deserve it? How can any argument in support of HK's democracy not also justify absolute violence against all other currently non-democratic states?

It's unfortunate, but HK didn't come across democracy by its own struggle in the way most countries did. Such foundations are just inherently unstable, how can it possibly be any other way?

> It's unfortunate, but HK didn't come across democracy by its own struggle in the way most countries did. Such foundations are just inherently unstable, how can it possibly be any other way?

Democracy in HK society seems actually very stable and ingrained into HK societiy mind. So much, that a territory that is 0.5% of the population of mainland China, is willing to stand up to the biggest army in the world to defend what is left of that democracy.

I know, that's why I said it's unfortunate. But that is not an argument for HK's right to democracy, for one simple reason: before the British invaded, the population of mainland China were also willing to stand up to the biggest army in the world. It is the exact same situation, just the other way around.

Neither is fair. Britain didn't have a right to HK and now China doesn't have a right to HK. They are both as bad as each other. You can't support one without implicitly supporting the other. Like I said, the world is a globalised now. We are all both Chinese and Western, the difference is superficial.