Well, it's hardly surprising that media reports about the integration of a fairly liberal city into a very repressive dictatorship.

Honestly, how do you feel about anything that isn't local news? Most of national news will be reporting about people you will never meet and don't know too.

Liberal yes. But they insist on "democracy" which is ridiculous, as it didn't happen under the British. They "almost" instated it shortly before the handover, but didn't succeed for some reason. Extremely amusing indeed.

And HK people's lives were almost unbearable under the tycoons' feudalism, which has nothing to do with Beijing.

> They "almost" instated it shortly before the handover, but didn't succeed for some reason. Extremely amusing indeed.

Perhaps because China declared that they'd invade if HK was allowed to self-govern?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...

"documents recently released by the National Archives in Britain suggest that beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing.

"The documents, part of a batch of typewritten diplomatic dispatches requested by reporters from two Hong Kong newspapers, reveal that Chinese leaders were so opposed to the prospect of a democratic Hong Kong that they threatened to invade should London attempt to change the status quo."

Grantham convinced London to scrap all plans for political reform on the basis that it did not "interest the British electorate". Later, when confronted by the Hong Kong public, he blamed London.[12] All major democratic reforms for Hong Kong were dropped by British Cabinet decision. In October 1952, the British Colonial Secretary Oliver Lyttelton announced that the time was "inopportune for...constitutional changes of a major character".[16]

Of course, British has its own interests, while China also has its own interests. In the end, HK is part of China, and it should be returned to China fully. If British consider Hong Kong's freedom is more important, maybe they should went to war with China instead.

Those numbers in brackets look like citations.[12, 16] What are you citing?

The phrase "All major democratic reforms for Hong Kong were dropped by British Cabinet decision." does not lead to any credible source, only some mentions on a small number of websites or Reddit.

Compare the Google searches:

- "the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing."

  [1] leads to the New York Times article, which I can follow its references.

- "All major democratic reforms for Hong Kong were dropped by British Cabinet decision."

  [2] does not lead to any credible source. In fact, some of the sites appear to be disinformation campaigns (don’t take my words, judge for yourself).

[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+colonial+governors+wh...

[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22All+major+democratic+refo...

> But they insist on "democracy" which is ridiculous, as it didn't happen under the British.

What is your argument here? They did not had democracy before so they should not complain to not have it now? How twisted is that.

Also, I don't think claiming your constitutional right to democracy can be tagged as "ridiculous". Universal suffrage and democratic election are parts of the "Basic law", the equivalent of the constitution, that the PRC signed as part of the handover "deal".

Democracy has never existed (except on paper) and never will. How twisted is the US system whose main goal is to separate people and control them more easily?

This comparison presumes a false choice between either close governance by China, or governance that resembles the old British order ("tycoon feudalism").

Why can't it be something else entirely?

Sure it can. But that's not the protesters' rhetoric.

In 1967 under the British, dozens of Chinese protesting against British rule and for representation were killed in Hong Kong.

> In 1967 under the British, dozens of Chinese protesting against British rule and for representation were killed in Hong Kong.

This comment is context free: missing critical historical contexts (if not outright misleading).

1967 was at the height of the Cultural Revolution in China, when it was spreading to Hong Kong [1], Macau [2], and elsewhere.

Notably, the local communists (CCP supporters) planted roadside bombs during the 1967 Riots [1], causing 15 deaths and 800+ injuries in Hong Kong.

The Wikipedia articles [1][2] have more details.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Hong_Kong_riots

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-3_incident

I do have family/friends in HK and they very much did care.

There has also been large numbers of people moving from HK because “[they] don’t want to be stuck in HK after mainland China has taken control”.

Yeah I'm interested to know if OP actually has any first-hand experience of this, because when I was there it was not difficult to find people who were despondent about the situation, even though none of them were directly involved with the protests anymore.

My impression was the general populace can't see a way out of this. That's pretty far from not caring though.

My friends in Hong Kong care a lot. They were born and raised there. They're all making plans to leave because they don't want their children to grow up in a CCP-dominated Hong Kong.

Good luck not getting your comment reported.

Any comment that is contrary to 'CCP dogs/propaganda' etc just gets downvoted/reported.

Even people who are pro-CCP care as the protest affects them.