Living in Australia, I've been exposed to both Hong Kong and mainlander Chinese people and I've developed an opinion. Australia really needs to start working harder to understand them than they do to understand us. In light of the recent disturbances in HK I read things like this paper with renewed interest.
The views of the mainlanders on HK are fascinating in how alien they are in contrast to how the Australian press sees the situation. I don't think the media is demonstrating an understanding of the relationship the Chinese middle class have with their government.
I had a fascinating conversation with a Korean friend. It is second hand, but some of his friends and colleagues live in HK. According to my friend, HKers in our generation (late 30s, early 40s) have a notion that the resistance is led by young people that have no Chinese identity. And this is offensive to many of them because they lived under British rule. Our generation had a culturally Chinese identity that and welcomed reunification, or at least had high hopes therein.
It's tempting to frame the current situation as a generational thing, but -- I'm of the same generation, and I'm certainly on the side of the "resistance" so to speak. Most of my friends and colleagues, of all ages, are on the same side.
The one that stands out to me is a girl I know from Shenzhen. Very intelligent, very articulate and someone I've pigeonholed as rising-star-in-leadership-somewhere material.
She's basically maintaining what seems to me to be a fairly passionate cross between an attack on the protestors and a defense of Chinese national pride. The two main prongs are that the protestors are disruptive/the protests cause injury (citing some facts I don't consider controversial) and the risk of interference by Westerners in Chinese affairs.
What is noticeably missing, that I'd expect of someone of similar character but with an Australian upbringing, is any acknowledgement that individual liberty could possibly be important to anyone, in Hong Kong or otherwise. At the stereotypical level nothing there surprises me. At the emotional level it is jarring. I'm going to be unpacking what is just my general support for Hong Kong vs. my status as not a Chinese citizen vs. genuine cultural differences.
China is huge and has become powerful again. I'd like to be more informed about the lens they use to see this sort of situation. There are clearly substantially different opinions about what is happening. Even if it is simply getting an English translation of the CCP propaganda that would be helpful, because at the moment I just don't know what specifically to expect if I ask a mainlander what they think about the topic. Given how tied Australia and China are, that isn't ideal.
You will find any number of American or other Western patriots who love their country but are suspicious of their governments. The Chinese, at least to the extent they are willing to openly express where it might be reported back, don’t differentiate.
My guess is the history that mainlanders went through, conjured a very different opinion on what things in life are most important. I don't think reading propaganda will help you understand better because you haven't gone through that history.
I think the answer is hidden in plain sight in the paper:
> "Xinhua news agency
issued an opinion that western-style parliamentary democracy would lead to a repetition
of the turbulent factionalism of China’s Cultural Revolution (http://j.mp/McRDXk)."
> [The CCP] said that “On the basis of China’s condi-
tions. . . we’ll not employ a system of multiple parties holding office in rotation” in order
to avoid “an abyss of internal disorder” (http://j.mp/Ldhp25)."
To us in the west, this reads as standard authoritarian propaganda excuses. But maybe they aren't total excuses after all? The Cultural Revolution was a traumatic period and people still remember it. A TLDR based on my understanding:
- Mao, despite being known as a murderer in the west, is regarded (for a part at least) as a hero in China because he did a lot of good in the beginning: getting rid of Japanese invaders, giving everyone an education, building a functioning country.
- After WW2 things went downhill. Mao didn't get along with other CCP members. In order to stay in power he declared a new revolution. Lots of people followed him and idolized him. But the revolution resulted in chaos, anarchy and mob rule. And Mao turned out to be an incompetent post-war policy maker so his policies resulted in famine etc (this is what the west refers to when they say Mao massacred people).
After the Cultural Revolution, I guess the CCP learned that the masses can be easily influenced for the worse, and want to avoid another Mao-like fiasco. And lots of civilians are tired of 150 years of wars, revolution, poverty and disunity, and so they see the CCP as a necessary evil.
This is combined with 100 years of colonialism that came prior to that, which instilled a sense of inferiority (compared to the west) that still still exists today.
So I guess there is a sense that unity and economic prosperity are the most important, everything else is secondary. So when they see various democratic systems, they see various parties bickering with each other at the expense of speed of progress and harmony.
I believe all of this is nearly unimaginable to many westerners because the west has been prosperous for so long. WW2 was disastrous, but in a very different way.
Chinese history is very different from the history that the west went through, so it does not surprise me that the conclusions drawn about what values are important, are different too.
Seems incredible to me that people keep thinking that intelligent people have to share the western liberal view of the world that we all have been indoctrinated under.
I think people are downvoting this over the word "indoctrinated" but I think it's a pretty accurate take. The whole democracy/freedom of speech/criticism of the government thing is an explicitly western position (though by now adopted at least in name by large parts of the world).
People in the west like to think that our cultural ideas are objectively superior and that anyone intelligent/reasonable/well-read enough would support them, and that's why you often see people act surprised when intellectuals in countries like China hold mainstream Chinese views.
In reality the main reason why we have the cultural ideas that we do is historical, and we all have them because we've been raised to believe these things since childhood. I think that's what the parent meant to say by "indoctrinated".
Interesting observation. Here is another one that I haven't seen yet....
Forcing criticism of the state to stay at the individual level drastically reduces the potential for foreign-funded fake grassroots movements to change the trajectory of domestic policy.
This stops a very common social attack vector that governments in the west readily employ around the world.
Anyone on the receiving end of American foreign policy hostility can understand this protectionist position.
I live and work in Shenzhen and am doing an MBA in Hong Kong. As one mainlander told me, Hong Kong can protest for democracy as much as they want, but independence from the mainland isn't ok, that's the line that can't be crossed. Of course, the government's long-term stance on democracy in Hong Kong is more complicated and he didn't speak to me on behalf of the government.
Hong Kong is an extremely touchy subject for mainlanders. As told to me by one of my professors, the taking of Hong Kong by the British Empire was taught in mainland Chinese schools as one of the most shameful aspects of Chinese history. Hence, especially now that China has Hong Kong back from the UK, whenever there is any kind of statement that Hong Kong should go back to the UK, or that Trump needs to come help Hong Kong, or that Hong Kong should be independent, it's met with a visceral reaction from mainlanders. That was apparently a time in history when foreigners would have shops or restaurants in Hong Kong and the mainland and have signs that said "No dogs or Chinese." It's extremely easy for mainland people to get extremely emotional about this topic. The fact is that despite Mao's shortfalls, he was the first one in a hundred years to set up a government that didn't get bullied by foreign powers. That period is literally called the hundred years of humiliation in Chinese history. Due to this historical context, now that Hong Kong is part of China again, ANY foreign influence or interference is strictly viewed as unacceptable by mainlanders.
So there's a bit of a powderkeg of non-overlapping priorities between the mainland and Hong Kong lower and middle classes that make for difficult conflict resolution.
I mention specifically lower and middle classes because it does seem to be mostly the lower and middle classes that are unhappy. I guess when you're a billionaire, you can do whatever you want and don't really care what kind of system you live in. But there is very good evidence that Hong Kong's economy and people have been left behind, just as America's "Trump base states" have been left behind. Through many decades, Hong Kong industries have never really evolved. For these last few decades have been centred around real estate and finance, and that's with not much land on which to construct new residences. So prices go up while there are no jobs to pay rent. There are some crazy photo essays on the Internet of Hong Kong people who live in what look smaller than jail cells because rent is so expensive. Meanwhile, Shenzhen totally caught onto the high-tech craze, jobs are everywhere, and everyone's making money. So there's a lot of mainlander consensus that Hong Kong dropped the ball and now Hong Kong is angry without taking responsibility. But there's no Trump to vote for because the mainland government reserves the right to restrict electoral candidates, so now they're protesting instead. And mainlanders look at them and say that no democracy can solve their structural problems, or else it would have been done already. Read an article shared by a Chinese friend that talks about how the Hong Kong government set aside a ton of funding to revitalize Hong Kong with new digital industries, and instead Hong Kong's super rich people funneled that money into their personal real estate projects. They'd say any democratic solution in Hong Kong won't have real teeth because look what happened before.
There are so many complicated factors involved that the two sides aren't really listening to each other. It reminds me of Colin Kaepernick. He's protesting about police brutality against black people, but people are angry at him because they say he's disrespecting the American flag and military. When two sides are not even on the same page, difficult for them to have a conversation.
Unfortunately for Hong Kong lower and middle class people, due to their economic weakness, they don't actually have a lot of leverage in these issues. 2014 Umbrella Movement showed as much. That's why the protestors are more violent than 2014, and that is slowly making them lose the moral high ground. The biggest point in a lot of mainlander eyes was when they beat up a mainland reporter at the Hong Kong airport, thinking him to be a mainland undercover cop. Mainland social media exploded that night, a lot of mainlanders got really mad and the next day was filled with the "What a shame for Hong Kong" meme. It's a bit like Ireland in that the IRA found it really difficult to give up their guns because their guns were their only big leverage in the negotiation with the government. Similarly, Hong Kong doesn't have much else to bargain with right now, so here we are.
Anyone who thinks this issue is black and white has no chance of offering a solution that will actually work. Scared of what could end up happening.
The tragic thing is what the protesters seem to want to return to is the by-gone era of the British rule. But that was very much the thing that turned Hong Kong into a place ruled by real estate moguls. The mainland Chinese vision of opening up and fully integrate the area of Hong Kong, Macau and Shenzhen/Canton is something that actually can break the rot and get Hong Kong in on the growth and prosperity that is there right next door.
Ya, all excellent points. Thanks for being analytical when so much discussion is a direct jump into dogma these days.
It’s pretty much exactly what this HK lady says as well https://youtu.be/WgplCDxvXN4 (sorry, it’s in canto). The reference to Lee Kuan Yew was particularly interesting.
The views of the mainlanders on HK are fascinating in how alien they are in contrast to how the Australian press sees the situation. I don't think the media is demonstrating an understanding of the relationship the Chinese middle class have with their government.