I am not talking about good natured Nazi Germans and other Westerners saving lives in the Nanjing Safety zone or something like that. Anyone with any kind of conscience would be sympathetic to things like the Nanjing Massacre.
Yes, China was the Qing dynasty at that time, but the bottom line is is that Hong Kong is part of Guangdong province which is populated with Han Chinese people. Just because the Manchus were controlling Han China at that time does not mean that that territory does not belong to Han Chinese people anymore. Since the Qing dynasty no longer exists, then territory formerly controlled by Han Chinese from the Ming dynasty reverts back to Han Chinese control.
If you were to ask your average Cantonese person if Hong Kong belongs to the Manchus just because the Qing were controlling China at that time, they wouldn't agree with it.
You are accusing Chinese people of distorting things, when in fact what you are saying kind of goes against common sense and is based on technicalities.
The Manchus came from up North to take Han China and then basically integrated into the Han Chinese population, so they were foreigners at first, but now Han Chinese and Manchu Chinese basically live together as one big group. That's not a whole lot different than Englishmen and Dutch living together in America and being 2 different groups perhaps at first but after a period of time, they would all just be Americans. Same thing with the Irish. After a period of time, they are just American.
By your definition of aggression, the Allies led by the United States, U.K., France, and other allied nations were aggressors against Nazi Germany that had occupied France and other parts of Europe. That means what Charles DeGaulle was doing was aggressive against Nazi Germany for trying to take back his own country.
The Nazis can sign whatever treaty to say they own France, and therefore France and other allied countries have no right to take it back if they have the upper hand one day?
So when we watch movies of the Normandy landings, we should be ashamed of the U.S. and other countries landing on the beaches because they are being aggressive against Nazi Germany?
It seems like a double standard. Because Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are viewed as bad, it is honorable for Allied countries to take back territory from them, but if China threatens to take back its own territory by force which was taken from them by force before, its considered to be aggressive.
I don't really think so. Being aggressive is attacking another country for territory you never controlled but just want for yourself. Kind of like Texas and California in the Mexican War. Being aggressive would be going after London. Not Hong Kong.
LURKER wrote:Betelnut wrote:However, in history books, you never see Western writers complaining about other ethnic groups controlling the Han.
Actually, you do. It's been a long time, but most Western observers in the 18th and 19th centuries sympathised with Chinese criticisms of the Ch'ing. Westerners also tended to sympathise with the Chinese during China's conflicts with Japan.Betelnut wrote:If you control a territory with your military, you own it and unless someone forces you off or you leave yourself, it's yours.
I suppose you're right... but remember in future that this is as true when events unfold in others' favour as it is when they unfold in favour of China.Betelnut wrote:why is it wrong for China to take back a little bit of a UK colony that was forcibly taken from them a century ago?
Strictly speaking, I would think that it was forcibly taken from the Manchus, not the Chinese. Chinese nationalists today can't seem to keep their story straight - were the Ch'ing foreigners themeslves, or were they Chinese? The Chinese often seem to say one or the other, depending on which answer is most useful rhetorically at the time.Betelnut wrote:I know the 1980's was a different era and the PRC was not as willing to get nuked for what it wanted, but it is not a light thing to consider to talk about nuking Beijing and other important parts of China in response to the PLA taking Hong Kong by force. That sounds pretty belligerent to me.
Is it not belligerent to threaten a military assault on the sovereign territory of another nation? Regardless of whether the Treaty of Nanjing was "unequal" or not, had China started a war against Britain over Hong Kong, it would have been the aggressor, by definition.