The Future of China

[Dahyan]

Something something "violence is resorted to when there are no more peaceful options".

But the last thing they want to do is provoke hostility and give the army an excuse to use lethal force. Now, they may do that anyways, but preemptively tossing a couple Molotovs or assaulting troops isn't going to give any advantage. If you can show the world they are peacefully resisting and the PRC responds with another mass killing then you've just turned just about the entire world against China without a doubt in a way yet unseen. Peaceful resistance worked with Gandhi and MLK. Now, granted Hong Kong isn't dealing with the British Empire or American segregation. Being peaceful may not change the hearts and minds of the Chinese mainland. The CCP will just censor any atrocities it commits anyways. But if you get the entire world turned against China, they cannot succeed in the long run. China needs the trade and blessing of the international community more than it will admit. And they can't strong arm the entire world.

I'd argue the "peaceful nature" of the Hong Kong protests ceased to be believable the moment they started burning people alive.

[Eikotomi]

But the last thing they want to do is provoke hostility and give the army an excuse to use lethal force. Now, they may do that anyways, but preemptively tossing a couple Molotovs or assaulting troops isn't going to give any advantage. If you can show the world they are peacefully resisting and the PRC responds with another mass killing then you've just turned just about the entire world against China without a doubt in a way yet unseen. Peaceful resistance worked with Gandhi and MLK. Now, granted Hong Kong isn't dealing with the British Empire or American segregation. Being peaceful may not change the hearts and minds of the Chinese mainland. The CCP will just censor any atrocities it commits anyways. But if you get the entire world turned against China, they cannot succeed in the long run. China needs the trade and blessing of the international community more than it will admit. And they can't strong arm the entire world.

I'd argue the "peaceful nature" of the Hong Kong protests ceased to be believable the moment they started burning people alive.

I concur.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

But the last thing they want to do is provoke hostility and give the army an excuse to use lethal force. Now, they may do that anyways, but preemptively tossing a couple Molotovs or assaulting troops isn't going to give any advantage. If you can show the world they are peacefully resisting and the PRC responds with another mass killing then you've just turned just about the entire world against China without a doubt in a way yet unseen. Peaceful resistance worked with Gandhi and MLK. Now, granted Hong Kong isn't dealing with the British Empire or American segregation. Being peaceful may not change the hearts and minds of the Chinese mainland. The CCP will just censor any atrocities it commits anyways. But if you get the entire world turned against China, they cannot succeed in the long run. China needs the trade and blessing of the international community more than it will admit. And they can't strong arm the entire world.

Well, the police have been kicking the arse of reporters and first aid providers for months, despite them being neutral and not even really counting as participants of the protests (even if the police disagree), but they don't seem to garner much response from the international community, so I don't think the fully peaceful movement is going to work out well. Besides, even disregarding that we're dealing with a regime arguably even less morally concerned than the British Empire or pre-Civil Rights Movement USA, the peaceful approaches of Ghandi and MLK were also accompanied by the much more violent counterparts. That, combined with the fact that months of peaceful protest had resulted in not even the amendment bill being postponed in the first place, makes me rather doubtful that continuing a peaceful resistance would yield anything - though that does not stop many of us from going through the more peaceful means of protests like boycotting pro-government establishments.

Either way, I feel this is getting off-topic. If you want to continue the discussion, there is a thread here dedicated to the current ongoing of Hong Kong.

I'm very skeptical of Hong Kong Journalists' neutrality, especially if they can get a press card for less than $20.Journalists in Hong Kong often stand between demonstrators and the police. It's dangerous and strange.They should stay away from both sides to find a safe place.

[Bombadil]

But the last thing they want to do is provoke hostility and give the army an excuse to use lethal force. Now, they may do that anyways, but preemptively tossing a couple Molotovs or assaulting troops isn't going to give any advantage. If you can show the world they are peacefully resisting and the PRC responds with another mass killing then you've just turned just about the entire world against China without a doubt in a way yet unseen. Peaceful resistance worked with Gandhi and MLK. Now, granted Hong Kong isn't dealing with the British Empire or American segregation. Being peaceful may not change the hearts and minds of the Chinese mainland. The CCP will just censor any atrocities it commits anyways. But if you get the entire world turned against China, they cannot succeed in the long run. China needs the trade and blessing of the international community more than it will admit. And they can't strong arm the entire world.

I'd argue the "peaceful nature" of the Hong Kong protests ceased to be believable the moment they started burning people alive.

I'd argue it was far earlier than that, it was when the government ignored the march of a million peaceful citizens, twice, and tried to ram it through the legislature regardless. Given they only then put it on hold once violence broke out it taught everyone that the government only seems to react in the way China expects everyone else to react, when violence is applied.

Still this is not the HK thread, you can go there to argue your point.

[Dahyan]

It's hard to have a discussion on China without it devolving into an argument about Hong Kong

[Tuthina]

It's hard to have a discussion on China without it devolving into an argument about Hong Kong

I don't know, the thread seems to be able to keep the focus on China at large without paying too much focus on Hong Kong for a few dozen pages, and I doubt that Hong Kong is that essential to the future of China that it has to take centre stage.

[Dahyan]

It's hard to have a discussion on China without it devolving into an argument about Hong Kong

I don't know, the thread seems to be able to keep the focus on China at large without paying too much focus on Hong Kong for a few dozen pages, and I doubt that Hong Kong is that essential to the future of China that it has to take centre stage.

Hopefully. Although I often tend to see such focus on secessionist movements such as in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang that it almost feels like we're discussing Yugoslavia.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I don't know, the thread seems to be able to keep the focus on China at large without paying too much focus on Hong Kong for a few dozen pages, and I doubt that Hong Kong is that essential to the future of China that it has to take centre stage.

Hopefully. Although I often tend to see such focus on secessionist movements such as in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang that it almost feels like we're discussing Yugoslavia.

Not in Tibet or Xinjiang.Those separatists are in India and Turkey.

[Dahyan]

Hopefully. Although I often tend to see such focus on secessionist movements such as in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang that it almost feels like we're discussing Yugoslavia.

Not in Tibet or Xinjiang.Those separatists are in India and Turkey.

True enough, but try explaining that to a liberal or neocon

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Not in Tibet or Xinjiang.Those separatists are in India and Turkey.

True enough, but try explaining that to a liberal or neocon

Then I'm asking for trouble.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Hopefully. Although I often tend to see such focus on secessionist movements such as in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang that it almost feels like we're discussing Yugoslavia.

Not in Tibet or Xinjiang.Those separatists are in India and Turkey.

I do feel though that while outright secessionist movements are nonexistent in these places, deep resentment for the Chinese is stored in some of the population residing there. All it takes is a small nudge and everything could go horribly wrong.

[Dahyan]

Not in Tibet or Xinjiang.Those separatists are in India and Turkey.

I do feel though that while outright secessionist movements are nonexistent in these places, deep resentment for the Chinese is stored in some of the population residing there. All it takes is a small nudge and everything could go horribly wrong.

I doubt it. Ethnic minorities have benefited quite a bit from Chinese policy over the past decades, such as being exempted from the one child policy while retaining all social benefits given by the central government.

And especially in Tibet, I do believe that memory of the slavery and serfdom that was common before the 1950s is kept alive in people's minds.

[-Astoria]

I doubt it. Ethnic minorities have benefited quite a bit from Chinese policy over the past decades, such as being exempted from the one child policy while retaining all social benefits given by the central government.

And especially in Tibet, I do believe that memory of the slavery and serfdom that was common before the 1950s is kept alive in people's minds.

Still doesn't excuse putting millions in glorified concentration camps.

[Heloin]

I do feel though that while outright secessionist movements are nonexistent in these places, deep resentment for the Chinese is stored in some of the population residing there. All it takes is a small nudge and everything could go horribly wrong.

I doubt it. Ethnic minorities have benefited quite a bit from Chinese policy over the past decades, such as being exempted from the one child policy while retaining all social benefits given by the central government.

Which totally makes up for concentration camps, somehow.

And especially in Tibet, I do believe that memory of the slavery and serfdom that was common before the 1950s is kept alive in people's minds.

Probably not. If someone invades your country and tries to paint a picture that they were "liberating" your home would you really believe it?

Also, past Tibetan governments really don't matter when it comes to autonomy or independence. Why does every argument against Tibetan independence insist that they'll become a feudal kingdom? You wouldn't argue that if Scotland became independent then they're only option would be to return that land to the Stuart kings.

[Dahyan]

I doubt it. Ethnic minorities have benefited quite a bit from Chinese policy over the past decades, such as being exempted from the one child policy while retaining all social benefits given by the central government.

And especially in Tibet, I do believe that memory of the slavery and serfdom that was common before the 1950s is kept alive in people's minds.

Still doesn't excuse putting millions in glorified concentration camps.

It doesn't. And that would be an issue if it happened.

[Juristonia]

Still doesn't excuse putting millions in glorified concentration camps.

It doesn't. And that would be an issue if it happened.

So it's an issue.

[Vistulange]

Still doesn't excuse putting millions in glorified concentration camps.

It doesn't. And that would be an issue if it happened.

Ah, glad to see that you also believe China's concentration camps are an issue, then.

Happy to have you on board, Dahyan.

[Dahyan]

It doesn't. And that would be an issue if it happened.

So it's an issue.

As much as Saddam's nukes and Gadhaffi's Viagra-induced soldiers were an issue, yeah.

[Novus America]

Still doesn't excuse putting millions in glorified concentration camps.

It doesn't. And that would be an issue if it happened.

It openly admits to having “re-education camps” for Muslims.
You can not argue they exist, as the PRC government openly admits they do.

The question is not their existence, the PRC simply claims they are “justified” to “stop terrorism”.
You can not deny they exist, rather supporting the PRC you must argue that the camps are good, and Muslims deserve them. That is the argument the PRC and it’s supporters make.
Even here.

[Novus America]

Well, the police have been kicking the arse of reporters and first aid providers for months, despite them being neutral and not even really counting as participants of the protests (even if the police disagree), but they don't seem to garner much response from the international community, so I don't think the fully peaceful movement is going to work out well. Besides, even disregarding that we're dealing with a regime arguably even less morally concerned than the British Empire or pre-Civil Rights Movement USA, the peaceful approaches of Ghandi and MLK were also accompanied by the much more violent counterparts. That, combined with the fact that months of peaceful protest had resulted in not even the amendment bill being postponed in the first place, makes me rather doubtful that continuing a peaceful resistance would yield anything - though that does not stop many of us from going through the more peaceful means of protests like boycotting pro-government establishments.

Either way, I feel this is getting off-topic. If you want to continue the discussion, there is a thread here dedicated to the current ongoing of Hong Kong.

I'm very skeptical of Hong Kong Journalists' neutrality, especially if they can get a press card for less than $20.Journalists in Hong Kong often stand between demonstrators and the police. It's dangerous and strange.They should stay away from both sides to find a safe place.

But you are not skeptical of the government line? Odd that.

No journalist is neutral, you can have a bias and still be telling the truth.
And some are more biased than others.
The fact is all journalism on the subject has some bias, that does not mean it is all false.

[Novus America]

I doubt it. Ethnic minorities have benefited quite a bit from Chinese policy over the past decades, such as being exempted from the one child policy while retaining all social benefits given by the central government.

Which totally makes up for concentration camps, somehow.

And especially in Tibet, I do believe that memory of the slavery and serfdom that was common before the 1950s is kept alive in people's minds.

Probably not. If someone invades your country and tries to paint a picture that they were "liberating" your home would you really believe it?

Also, past Tibetan governments really don't matter when it comes to autonomy or independence. Why does every argument against Tibetan independence insist that they'll become a feudal kingdom? You wouldn't argue that if Scotland became independent then they're only option would be to return that land to the Stuart kings.

Exactly. This is a complete BS argument.
By this argument Germany should not be allowed to exist because it had a bad government or ironically the China should not be allowed to exist because of the Great Leap Forward.

Having a bad government in the past does not invalidate the existence of a country.

Although most Tibetans in exile seem to have indicated they would be fine with being part of a free and federalized China, their problem is not with being part of China, their problem is with the PRC.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I'm very skeptical of Hong Kong Journalists' neutrality, especially if they can get a press card for less than $20.Journalists in Hong Kong often stand between demonstrators and the police. It's dangerous and strange.They should stay away from both sides to find a safe place.

But you are not skeptical of the government line? Odd that.

No journalist is neutral, you can have a bias and still be telling the truth.
And some are more biased than others.
The fact is all journalism on the subject has some bias, that does not mean it is all false.

My government's policy is, of course. From its point of view, it's also good for our interests.What do you expect me to doubt? Doubt its policy will hurt me?I'm sorry, HK is a battlefield.Its significance is that this is the springboard for China to internationalize its RMB.It is necessary to drive western forces and Neo liberalism out of HK by all means.HK as a region belongs to China. If someone doesn't like it, I suggest they go to the UK or US.You got rid of the CCP, CCP got rid of you,and the West has new materials to attack CCP.In this way, everyone will be happy.

You don't understand my resion. The reporter reported the news. Hong Kong Journalists stand between police and protesters, throwing flasks at one side and explosion-proof cars at the other.And then they point the camera at the police.I'm not talking about their reports. I'm talking about their actions.Why don't you explain to me the necessity of this kind of behavior?

[Rusozak]

Still doesn't excuse putting millions in glorified concentration camps.

It doesn't. And that would be an issue if it happened.

Ah, so more genocide denial and PRC apologism in the name of ideology. Wonderful.

[Novus America]

But you are not skeptical of the government line? Odd that.

No journalist is neutral, you can have a bias and still be telling the truth.
And some are more biased than others.
The fact is all journalism on the subject has some bias, that does not mean it is all false.

My government's policy is, of course. From its point of view, it's also good for our interests.What do you expect me to doubt? Doubt its policy will hurt me?I'm sorry, HK is a battlefield.Its significance is that this is the springboard for China to internationalize its RMB.It is necessary to drive western forces and Neo liberalism out of HK by all means.HK as a region belongs to China. If someone doesn't like it, I suggest they go to the UK or US.You got rid of the CCP, CCP got rid of you,and the West has new materials to attack CCP.In this way, everyone will be happy.

You don't understand my resion. The reporter reported the news. Hong Kong Journalists stand between police and protesters, throwing flasks at one side and explosion-proof cars at the other.And then they point the camera at the police.I'm not talking about their reports. I'm talking about their actions.Why don't you explain to me the necessity of this kind of behavior?

A lot of this is unreadable but I think you are asking about the behavior of the some of the journalists? Well just because some journalists participated in such actions does not mean they all did, and if you really want to see what is going on you have to report from the front line.
There is still a lot of good journalism going on.

A lie to advance the interests of Xi is still a lie too.

I am not denying Hong Kong is controlled by the PRC, and do not think independence is really possible but I do not see why Xi has to screw everything up. Hong Kong was not a problem for the PRC before Xi started violating the Basic Law and the Sino–British Joint Declaration.
Hong Kong was not having these problems 10 years ago, Xi had to get angry because some Hong Kong booksellers exposed Xi’s corruption.

This is Xi’s personal problem.

Anyways if you “crush” Hong Kong then it will no longer work to internationalize the RMB.
International businesses prefer to do business in Hong Kong ONLY because it has a more transparent legal structure. Eliminate its legal structure and they will just move to Singapore and then you can no longer internationalize the RMB through it!

[Tuthina]

My government's policy is, of course. From its point of view, it's also good for our interests.What do you expect me to doubt? Doubt its policy will hurt me?I'm sorry, HK is a battlefield.Its significance is that this is the springboard for China to internationalize its RMB.It is necessary to drive western forces and Neo liberalism out of HK by all means.HK as a region belongs to China. If someone doesn't like it, I suggest they go to the UK or US.You got rid of the CCP, CCP got rid of you,and the West has new materials to attack CCP.In this way, everyone will be happy.

You don't understand my resion. The reporter reported the news. Hong Kong Journalists stand between police and protesters, throwing flasks at one side and explosion-proof cars at the other.And then they point the camera at the police.I'm not talking about their reports. I'm talking about their actions.Why don't you explain to me the necessity of this kind of behavior?

A lot of this is unreadable but I think you are asking about the behavior of the some of the journalists? When just because some journalists participated in such actions do not mean they all did and if you really want to see what is going on you have to report from the front line.
There is still a lot of good journalism going on.

A lie to advance the interests of Xi is still a lie to.

I am not denying Hong Kong is controlled by the PRC, and do not think independent is possible but I do not see why Xi has to screw everything up. Hong Kong was not a problem for the PRC before Xi started violating the Basic Law and the Sino–British Joint Declaration.
Hong Kong was not having these problems 10 years ago, Xi has to get angry because some Hong Kong booksellers exposed Xi’s corruption.

This is Xi’s personal problem.

Anyways if you “crush” Hong Kong then it will no longer work to international the RMB.
International businesses prefer to do business in Hong Kong ONLY because it has a more transparent legal structure. Eliminate its legal structure and they will just move to Singapore and then you can no longer internationalize the RMB through it!

On the note of journalist behaviour, I don't think there are reports on journalists actively attacking the police so far - if there are, I would expect the government mouthpiece to keep talking about that, instead of them "obstructing police work". There are often reporters who ended up being between the police and the protesters, but I feel it has more to do with the fact that it often provides the most "on-scene" view of things, which is especially crucial for those doing live reports.

If anything, pretty much all the time journalists become part of the conflict, it's because the police started attacking them, from relatively minor things like shoving them to pepper-spraying them, if not outright attacking them with water cannon and beanbag rounds/rubber bullet in some truly severe case. When up to 65% of reporters have been subjected to police assault and humiliation, it's only natural that most of them will hold a personal bias against the police, though even then it does not necessarily mean they will incorporate such bias into their reporting. This is especially true for live reporting which has been pretty common in protests, as it's pretty hard to fake things that are going live. The fact that many of the protesters' more morally questionable acts are documented on said live broadcast should be able to dispel the idea of biased reporting in that regard. Ultimately, the reason that reporters are reporting a lot more cases of police brutality is that, well, there's a lot.

I'm not saying all journalists are always right, and once in a while we do see some rather questionable actions by some of them, but I don't think they're significant enough compared with the numbers of journalists who have a better hold on their professionalism. I should also note that despite the common rumour among pro-government groups that it's easy to buy a fake press card, so far the Hong Kong Journalists Association has only received one case of someone using a fake press card since June last year. I'm not saying that fake press cards don't exist - you can pretty much buy most fake certificates and cards on Taobao nowadays - but I don't think there is a strong case supporting the notion that there are many protesters using fake press cards to ambush police.