And to expand on your point about wanting to empower self determination, then you should stand with the HK government against foreign influence in HK domestic affairs. There is ample evidence of the United States pumping millions of dollars into the protests. The leaders of the protests have met with US officials to get their support. This is not normal. Imagine if news came out that BLM leaders in certain cities were meeting with Xi or Putin, and receiving millions in funds.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-poll-ex...
As you note, a much smaller fraction want independence. That doesn't mean they want to be subject to PRC law, though I agree the thing the people of HK seem to want (autonomy without independence) isn't usually how international (intranational?) relations work, especially when the "protecting power" is a dictatorship.
And yes, the linguistic argument was embarrassing; Westerners should learn more about Asia, and he'll surely abandon such arguments once he learns what language they speak in Taiwan. You could likewise learn more about life with Western-style freedoms, and you might understand why the people of Hong Kong (and America, misinformed as we might often be) so value them.
For example, the majority of people would agree that they do not want their taxes to be raised (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx). Those same people might not like the ramifications of that, but that wouldn't necessarily change their opinion.
Back to HK. The existence of HK as a semi-autonomous region that is still part of China provides a great way for foreign powers to extend their influence into China's domestic affairs. In this scenario, the US clearly has its hand in HK domestic affairs. US leaders are meeting with protest leaders. US organizations are funding protests. Flip this with domestic affairs in America, and you'll see that there is something deeply wrong with this picture. Although it isn't 1 to 1, imagine if China were funding BLM protests and inviting BLM leaders to Beijing.
I'm going to add a few links which support these claims if you were unaware. You could find some more yourself if you'd like:
US role in Hong Kong protests - https://www.workers.org/2019/06/42820/?fbclid=IwAR2ZjOUSl2Bt...
US Senator Ted Cruz visiting Hong Kong - https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1182937896795246593
American Gov’t, NGOs Fuel and Fund Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Protests - https://www.mintpressnews.com/hong-kong-protests/259202/
Sidenote: I am American. I have learned about Western-style "freedoms" and find them very contradictory with America as it exists today. For example, the American rate of incarceration is the highest in the world, surpassing even the highest rates of incarceration of Stalin's USSR. Obviously, not everything China does is good and not everything America does is bad, but I'd encourage you to take a more critical eye to any mainstream Western sentiment on foreign countries, especially when that sentiment usually results in thousands being killed.
There's certainly a contradiction there. I'd attribute HK public opinion against independence as recognition that they're geopolitically unable to exist as an independent country, and a desire for the perceived next best thing (which they really did have until recently), and not as any actual desire to be controlled by the PRC. How else do you explain public opposition to the national security law?
> I do believe China could do better in terms of securing individual liberty for their citizens, but if that comes at the cost of its sovereignty, then obviously some concessions have to be made.
And I'm not sure how Hong Kong's previous autonomy (or any other freedoms) would come at the cost of the PRC's sovereignty? If the CCP wanted to hold democratic elections tomorrow for all territory within their military control, then they could do it. Inertia being what it is, they'd probably even win! No outside force is preventing the PRC's government from responding to the will of the mainland's or HK's people; but instead, Beijing is transitioning from the pragmatic sort of technocracy that Deng Xiaoping introduced to plain dictatorship. The end of Hong Kong's autonomy is just another step down that path.
Finally, countries express opinions about the affairs of other countries all the time. The USA exists in part because of French meddling in a British colony. Everyone likes to do it, and no one likes it when others do it to them. As long as it's happening openly, I can't get too upset either way. America is certainly flawed in many important ways, but I can express those ways openly without fear for my personal safety, and that free expression has historically resulted in what I consider positive change. Something close to that used to be true in HK, and now it isn't. I suspect that became inevitable with the handover and with Xi's self-coronation, but I think it's a great loss.
ETA: And I'm not sure whether it's by coincidence, but your points closely track Beijing's usual talking points against the USA (sovereignty / "internal matter", incarceration rate, etc.). If you don't mind sharing, where did you develop these beliefs?
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Hong Kong benefits immensely from its autonomous position in regards to the Chinese government, so they don't want to disrupt the status quo. The protests have revealed HK to be a national security issue for the Chinese government, so they want to create laws to make sure HK isn't used as a center of political dissent. These two ideas are contradictory with each other, so a law like this was inevitable.
>And I'm not sure how Hong Kong's previous autonomy (or any other freedoms) would come at the cost of the PRC's sovereignty?
I'm not sure if you understand the original impetus of the extradition bill. Here's a good Twitter thread that details the provisions: https://twitter.com/DanielDumbrill/status/117502034599824588...
To answer your question, if criminals are able to easily escape China into Hong Kong, that fundamentally weakens the justice system. HKers and mainland Chinese move between HK and the mainland constantly. It would obviously be a failure of justice if you could go to a city within your country and encounter the man who killed your daughter. A similar law exists within Puerto Rico, a US territory. This is the bill that originally sparked the protests.
Recently Beijing passed the bill we are talking about that also gives them much more power in terms of being able to imprison HKers that try to subvert the government. This can be seen as a response to the protests, whose leaders have been revealed to be funded and supported by foreigners. China's sovereignty is absolutely threatened by protests and riots that seek to destabilize Chinese places of power, like Hong Kong.
>As long as it's happening openly, I can't get too upset either way
If you can't get upset about the US meddling in Chinese affairs, then you can't get upset about China trying to stop internal subversion. Not to mention, it absolutely doesn't just happen openly. The US has a long history of covert regime change operations. This happens completely undemocratically. Here's a short list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
I mean, just look at the hysteria surrounding Russian involvement in US elections. Rumors of Trump officials meeting with Russian officials has set public discourse on fire for years. And yet, it's unreasonable for China to oppose Demosisto party leaders who have openly met with US officials. I'm not trying to use whataboutism to deflect, I'm trying to paint an equivalency between the situations of these two countries.
>where did you develop these beliefs?
I'm fairly left leaning. China is a leftist country. I know China isn't perfect, but you can easily rationalize their decisions as being made by a government that cares about its people, not power-mad evil dictators as most people would have you believe. If you're interested in learning more, I would recommend reading Blackshirts & Reds by Michael Parenti. https://mltheory.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/michael-parenti...
I think the extradition bill means "anyone can be extradited to the mainland at any time, to be punished in any manner for any reason, according to Xi Jinping's personal judgment". Do you disagree? If so, what makes you doubt that Xi has that power? Or do you agree, but think it's good for him to extend that dictatorial power into Hong Kong?
Finally, have you been to Hong Kong? To the PRC? How much time have you spent living or doing business there? You have a picture of the region that I'm afraid departs considerably from that lived experience.
ETA: And to be clear, you're saying here that you were born into relative freedom, and have chosen to use that freedom to advocate for a one-man dictatorship to impose further control over a precarious quasi-state with elements of democracy and a highly-functioning rule of law. This is apparently because you consider that dictatorship to be "leftist". I hope you're not surprised by the cool reception that you're getting to this.
Here are several citations to back up my claim: "The varieties of Chinese are usually considered by native speakers to be regional variants of ethnic Chinese speech, without consideration of whether they are mutually intelligible. Due to their lack of mutual intelligibility, they are generally described as distinct languages (perhaps hundreds) by linguists who sometimes note that they are more varied than the Romance languages.[b] Investigation of the historical relationships among the Sinitic languages is just getting started. Currently, most classifications posit 7 to 13 main regional groups, based on often superficial phonetic developments, of which the most populous by far is Mandarin (about 800 million speakers, e.g. Southwestern Mandarin), followed by Min (75 million, e.g. Southern Min), Wu (74 million, e.g. Shanghainese) and Yue (68 million, e.g. Cantonese).[4] These groups are unintelligible to each other and generally many of their subgroups are mutually unintelligible as well (e.g., not only is Min Chinese a family of mutually unintelligible languages, but Southern Min itself is not a single language). There are, however, several transitional areas, where languages and dialects from different branches share enough features for some limited intelligibility between neighboring areas. Examples are New Xiang and Southwest Mandarin, Xuanzhou Wu and Lower Yangtze Mandarin, Jin and Central Plains Mandarin and certain divergent dialects of Hakka with Gan (though these are unintelligible with mainstream Hakka)."[1]
David Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 312. "The mutual unintelligibility of the varieties is the main ground for referring to them as separate languages."[2]
Linguists in China often use a formulation introduced by Fu Maoji in the Encyclopedia of China: “汉语在语言系属分类中相当于一个语族的地位。” ("In language classification, Chinese has a status equivalent to a language family.")[3]
Norman (1988), p. 1. "[...] the modern Chinese dialects are really more like a family of languages [...]"[4]
DeFrancis (1984), p. 56. "To call Chinese a single language composed of dialects with varying degrees of difference is to mislead by minimizing disparities that according to Chao are as great as those between English and Dutch. To call Chinese a family of languages is to suggest extralinguistic differences that in fact do not exist and to overlook the unique linguistic situation that exists in China."[5]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_language [2][3][4][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_language#cite_note-5
That touched a nerve, didn't it?
Let me guess, you don't speak any of these Chinese dialects: Cantonese, Taiwanese, or Mandarin. Because if you did, you would know there's massive overlap between them, phonetically. Are they mostly "mutually unintelligible"? For sure. But to claim that they are more distant from one another than the Romance languages? Complete and utter bullshit.
You probably don't speak any Romance language outside of English, do you?
Not at all. I'm simply asking you to actually make arguments based upon facts then attacks on a person. Thus, the conversation is meaningful and worth each of our time.
> Let me guess, you don't speak any of these Chinese dialects: Cantonese, Taiwanese, or Mandarin.
My wife is Taiwanese and knows Mandarin. Her father was born on the mainland and his family had to flee to Taiwan when he was 2. He speaks Mandarin and Taiwanese. His parents only spoke Mandarin. We've been together for 15 years and discuss linguistics quite often.
> You probably don't speak any Romance language outside of English, do you?
(1) English isn't a Romance language. It is a Germanic language. Romance languages are direct descendants of Latin. They include Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Romanian, and many smaller languages.
(2) I actually do speak Spanish, and I studied Latin for 11 years. My wife's mother is Latina and her parents (both the Chinese father and Latina mother) live in Latin America. They don't speak English. Thus, my primary way of communicating with them is Spanish.
> you would know there's massive overlap between them, phonetically
Languages sounding the same in no way makes them the same language or closer together linguistically. A great example is the vowels in Spanish and Japanese are identical to one another, purely by coincidence. This makes it much much easier for a native Spanish speaker to become aurally proficient in Japanese and vice versa despite the two languages not being related to each other at all.
> Are they mostly "mutually unintelligible"? For sure. But to claim that they are more distant from one another than the Romance languages? Complete and utter bullshit.
(1) Literally the definition dialects vs separate languages is mostly derived from mutual intelligibility. It is simply a fact that many Romance languages are mutually intelligible to one another. Spanish speakers can understand Italians and vice versa. Portuguese can understand Spanish and Italian, but not the other way around. These are simply facts. Thus, by linguistic definitions, it is indisputable that the Romance languages have less variation from one another / are closer to each other than the Chinese languages are from each other.
Please see this enumeration of which languages are mutually intelligible with one another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_intelligibility#List_of...
(2) You didn't respond to any of my citations above including one by Fu Maoji, who was a Chinese linguist.
On the Wikipedia page discussing "Mutually intelligible languages or varieties of one language", it states "In addition, political and social conventions often override considerations of mutual intelligibility. For example, the varieties of Chinese are often considered a single language even though there is usually no mutual intelligibility between geographically separated varieties."[1] Translation -- that the PRC has overridden the linguistic definition of what defines languages vs dialects and replaced it with its arbitrary definition that all Sinitic languages are dialects of a single language for political purposes. The reason - the PRC wants to pretend that there is one China and homogenize the people of China into a single entity. It is why it is forcefully reeducating the Uighurs, why it pretends minorities don't exist in China, and why it has been pushing a Mandarin agenda for decades. However, the government realizes that Shanghainese, Taiwanese, Cantonese, etc aren't going away. Thus, it instead likes to pretend like they are all simply dialects of Chinese in order to make the differences seem less pronounced. This aids in supporting Han ethnic nationalism over regional linguistic pride.
This can be seen clearly by the government's push for all Children to simply learn Mandarin in school. The PRC wants to kill diversity as diversity is seen as a threat to their unified control.
"Indeed, promoting Mandarin Chinese among Hong Kong students has been a political task for the Hong Kong government since 1997, when control of the former British colony was returned to China. The Hong Kong government launched a scheme 10 years ago to incentivize schools to use Mandarin instead of Cantonese in Chinese language classes and has spent 180 million in Hong Kong dollars ($23 million in U.S. currency) in assistance to schools since the effort began.
According to official figures, over 70 percent of Hong Kong’s primary schools now use Mandarin in Chinese-language classes.
...
'A dialect cannot be considered a ‘mother [tongue]’,' wrote the former official at China’s Ministry of Education and the State Language Commission. He asserted that since most Hong Kong people belong to the Han ethnicity, their mother tongue 'should be the hanyu (Chinese).'
But Cantonese and languages spoken in southern China such as Hakka and Min are in fact regarded as languages rather than dialects by linguists, said Stephen Matthews, a linguistics professor at the University of Hong Kong. And since a 'mother tongue' is the first language that a child hears from his or her mother, 'it does not make sense to consider written Chinese as the mother tongue of a Cantonese speaker,' said Mr. Matthews."[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_intelligibility#Mutuall...
[2] https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/06/05/...
That's an impressive list of credentials. But it confirmed my suspicion: you don't speak Cantonese, Taiwanese, or Mandarin.
>> You probably don't speak any Romance language outside of English, do you?
> (1) English isn't a Romance language. It is a Germanic language. Romance languages are direct descendants of Latin.
> (2) I actually do speak Spanish, and I studied Latin for 11 years.
I stand corrected.
>> you would know there's massive overlap between them, phonetically
>Languages sounding the same in no way makes them the same language or closer together linguistically. A great example is the vowels in Spanish and Japanese are identical to one another, purely by coincidence.
No. I meant that the same word (or more precisely, character) in Cantonese, Taiwanese, or Mandarin often sound the same or similar, not often enough that they are mutually intelligible, but often enough. Again, you'd have to speak at least two of these to know that.
> (1) Literally the definition dialects vs separate languages is mostly derived from mutual intelligibility.
Let me guess, some euro-centric linguists came up with that definition. It's probably a fine definition in the study of European languages, but it's by no means the only definition.
I will concede, however, that judging by this definition, these Chinese dialects may be more distant from one another phonetically than the Romance languages.
What you are forgetting (and what those euro-centric linguists failed to account for) though, is the shared written form of the Chinese language. Even when a word sounded wildly different in Cantonese, Taiwanese, or Mandarin, they all know it's the same word.
> why it pretends minorities don't exist in China
That's a straight up lie. China has long celebrated diversity and the 55 or so ethnic minorities. These minorities even get special privileges, e.g. not being subject to the one-child policy imposed for decades on the majority Han ethnicity, preferential placement in schools, etc.
> Indeed, promoting Mandarin Chinese among Hong Kong students has been a political task for the Hong Kong government since 1997... The Hong Kong government launched a scheme 10 years ago to incentivize schools to use Mandarin instead of Cantonese in Chinese language classes.
Promoting and incentivizing? What unspeakable evil? Honestly how is this worse than Quebecois or Puerto Ricans having to learn English?
> the PRC wants to pretend that there is one China and homogenize the people of China into a single entity.
China is what it is today because of the shared language, culture, values, heritage, and history. It behooves you to understand that, instead of simply being outraged because China claims your wife's homeland as part of its territory.
This is part of the manipulation of the narrative by the Chinese government. It refuses to even recognize that these are truly different languages and calls them "varieties of Chinese" or "dialects of Chinese" when Cantonese or Taiwanese are more distant from Mandarin than the Romance languages are from one another. Then it tries to pretend like there are only a single people in China and is systematically eradicating minority communities.[1]
Thus, Mandarin political domination over other Chinese communities is imperialism at the very least, if not colonialism. Imperialism and colonialism aren't really that different from one another.[2]
Additionally, every group always like to claim the land that they had at their maximal imperial state. But borders change over time. People move around -- even Taiwan was only recently colonized by Chinese in the 17th/18th century in large numbers and before and after that was owned by other empires. Another example is when the Dutch decolonized Indonesia. The Dutch were simply replaced by the new "foreign imperialists" of the central Indonesian government, which the Balinese people and other such peoples of Indonesia considered a different group than themselves.
Furthermore, simply a region has been part of a broader empire for centuries or even millennia, doesn't mean isn't still being oppressed by an imperialist empire. The Russian Empire, Spanish oppression of other provinces and minorities for hundreds of years, etc.
Thus perhaps instead of focusing on the colonialism part we should focus on the imperialism part. The aim should be to empower self determination of a people and enabling them to be free of oppressive, imperial influence.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53220713
[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/