> They graciously agreed to return them for China

Sorry, but you can't 'graciously' return a colony. It was something they never should have had.

The right to govern extends from the consent of the governed. It's not a question of who "should" own Hong Kong based on some centuries old history. It's a question of who the people of Hong Kong choose to govern them. Had an open referendum been held in 1997, it's almost certainly the case that the citizenry would not have voted to return to the tutelage of the dictatorship in Beijing.

This is something I don't understand as well. Why didn't Hong Kong choose to become an independent state when they had the chance? They could have thrived like Singapore does.

They didn't have a choice. It was either rejoin China or get their water cut off.

Electricity too. That PRC nuclear plant that was in the news? Helps power HK.

Hong Kong is still a more free society. So probably its not a good suggestion to make it worse than what it is already due to heavy handed approach to national security. Please check report in Hong Kong (52 points) [1] and Singapore (49 points) [2] on freedom.

In Hong Kong one can go for protest if its not breaking the National Security Law, in Singapore no one can protest unless approved by Police, recent case highlights it when a student send a tweet to protest when Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison visited Singapore [3].

Hong Kong is still very good when it comes to internet and freedom of expression. Also it follows common law jurisdictions and judges are able to give judgements against the government in many instances. Also Singapore has POFMA [4], which is worse than rules in Hong Kong.

In Hong Kong anyone can form a company and manage it without having a local permanent resident or citizen as Director. In Singapore one cannot form a limited liability company easily unless has a local permanent resident or citizen as Director (for others need a special conditions and permission).

[1] https://freedomhouse.org/country/hong-kong/freedom-world/202...

[2] https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202...

[3] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/spf-tweet-pro...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_from_Online_Falseho...

They could thrive only if their Govt rule like Singapore Govt.

I have no love for the CCP but I think this type of caricature simplification is both wrong and not insightful. The CCP members are not some cartoon villains bent on world domination.

The British did not allowed them to choose either. The members of legislative created by the British is based on appointment not elections. The British only decided the reform the legislative after the handover sealed.

The CCP prevented the British from enacting democratic reforms and any self-determination in Hong Kong, under the thread of military invasion. This isn't on Britain, they tried decades prior.

Sounds like a good approach. Why not put it to practice by letting China own Florida for 150 years, then see who Floridians want to join at the end of it.

>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]

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.

Hong Kong was built from nothing by the British. Before the British arrived and settled HK, it was but an empty jungle mountains sticking of an estuary on the Ocean. By comparison, the powerhouse of southern China, Guangzhou, was plenty populated. They ceded some empty land to the brits to build a trading port some distance away.

Why would the Communist Party of China have more of a claim to this land than the brits? When HK was ceded and built, the CCP didn't even exist and wouldn't for a few more hundred years. A different power (the Qing empire) controlled the land from afar. They are from a different ethnic group (Manchurian), from modern day northern China / Russia, and have very little to do with the Cantonese people who inhabit southern China.

(I live here)

> China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047

Independence in domestic matters is still there in Hong Kong, as it was before 1997 (at that time also chief executive is not elected). Hong Kong earlier worked under common law system and it still has the same system (China system is continental law system). Nationality law was enacted using provisions of basic law which provided a thin layer between one country and two systems. Also this is in response to threats of using Hong Kong as launch pad for attack on China in cold war.

> They graciously agreed to return them for China

Lived long enough in Hong Kong to know it was anything but gracious. UK left because they milked enough from Hong Kong and risking a war with China for a small gains were not worthwhile.