World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
China in the 1980's: "if you give us back Hong Kong, we'll take good care of it...."
UK: "ok sounds good. Here you go!"
Kinda sounds silly. Don't ya think?
I don’t think anyone was under any illusions. Britain didn’t have a choice or any leverage. It was a 99 year lease so there was no legal claim to keep HK and the UK wasn’t going to war with modern China. China could have just taken it if Britain set a bunch of terms.
Before the handover, they just basically offered Hong Kong residents the right to move to England. Canada, Australia, and the U.S. had special rules for immigrants from HK. (Probably other countries too.)
Technically only some of HK was under the lease, some was indefinitely controlled by the British. However, you're still right because of the military force difference.
Not just an issue of military forces. The New Territories were where all the water supplies for Hong Kong Island were located. It would have been a completely untenable situation once the 99 year lease ran out.
Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were annexed as booty from the Opium Wars. The New Territories were leased at the point of a gun.
All were inextricably bound to China long before 1997 as they depended on it for both water and electricity.
Yeah, I'm not justifying the annexation.
Lord hear me now
Junk boats and English boys
Crashing out in super marts
Electric fences and guns
You swallow me
I'm a pill on your tongue
Here on the nineteenth floor
The neon lights make me come
And late in a star's life
It begins to explode
And all the people in a dream
Wait for the machine
Pick the shit up leave it clean
Kid, hang over here
What you learning in school?
Is the rise of an Eastern sun
Gonna be good for everyone?
The radio station disappears
Music turning to thin air
The DJ was the last to leave
She had well conditioned hair,
Was beautiful, but nothing really was there
Are you aware that China only leased hong kong to Britain? They didn't have much of a choice in giving it back to China due to the treaty. I linked a summary of the history for you below.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/britain-agrees-to-return-hong-kong-to-china
Edit: looks like some people don't care for inconvenient things like historical fact and upholding treaties between sovereign nations. Lol.
TL;DR: Only New Territories is leased for 99 years, remaining part of Hong Kong is ceased. So the statement is partly correct.
About "China only leased Hong Kong to Britain" is partly correct, and here is why:
After the first opium war, Hong Kong Island (including Aberdeen Island/Ap Lei Chau and surrounding islands) was cesed to British under Treaty of Nanking, which stated that
Wikipedia source
Treaty source
Then, after the second opium war, Kowloon Peninsula was cesed under Convention of Peking, which stated:
Convention source
Wikipedia source
Note: Kowloon Peninsula was leased initially, but latter ceased to British, see cite 1.
So , the remaining part of Hong Kong, the New Territories, is leased under The Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting an Extension of Hong Kong Territory , but English translation is not available, so here is a machine translated version:
Convention source
Wikipedia source
To sum up, only the New Territories is leased and the remaining part is ceased. For more detail, please read Cession of Hong Kong from wikipedia (Chinese Version only, you may use machine translation)
Map of Hong Kong
Cite 1:
Chapter 2 British Occupation of Hong Kong and the Establishment of the Colonial System from A Brief History of Hong Kong—From Ancient Times to the 1997 Handover, by 劉智鵬; 劉蜀永, ISBN 978-962-937-420-4.
To pretend that the Brits "leased" Hong Kong like it's a mutual transaction and not because of colonization and the Opium wars is utterly idiotic.
The Brits had a choice when they funneled Opium into China in exchange of silver. They had a choice when they pointed a gun to the Chinese for taking the New Territories.
The Brits had a choice... is it a moral choice? No... but they had a choice.
The Brits taking Hong Kong from China is a huge stain in history. But to pretend that Brits are going to have any say after giving the territory back - also sounds ridiculously stupid.
Thank you for correcting my inaccuracies and not being a dick while doing so, I hope you have a good day kind stranger.
Unlike you, someone was kind enough to show what I had gotten right and what I had gotten wrong. I've thanked them for helping correct my knowledge. You, on the other hand, are welcome to shove it.