|
Vladimir Putin posted:Abrahamic religions are both philosophies and religions. Confucianism seems more like people who revere the teachings of Socrates more than anything else. Traditional religion in China/Japan/Korea is basically indigenous polytheism with Buddhism and then Confucianism bolted on top, neither of the three terms "Taoism/Shinto/whatever Korea does", "Buddhism", or "Confucianism" is a good descriptor on its own.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Only if your definition of religion must include an Abrahamic God. Do you consider the belief of "Mandate of Heaven" religious? And the concept of man working with nature (some time expressed in the concept of Yin and Yang)? And Confucianism? Personally I believe Confucianism is yes a real religion, but no on the other two, "earlier" belief. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Is Christianity a big thing there? Are we talking mass adoption among young people or basically a cult, only notable in comparison to the old traditional religion? One only need to take a look at Hong Kong movie/TV/popula culture and can see Christianity has minimum effect on Hong Kong culture despite long time cultivation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
By the way, how much of an influence does Taiwan/Hong Kong have on mainland popular culture? I guess it makes sense that the mainland wouldn't really be a large producer of media given that disposable incomes have not been high for very long, but how influential exactly are we talking?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Do you consider the belief of "Mandate of Heaven" religious? And the concept of man working with nature (some time expressed in the concept of Yin and Yang)? And Confucianism? I consider the concept of Nirvana as religious since that's a defining characteristic of Buddhism. icantfindaname posted:By the way, how much of an influence does Taiwan/Hong Kong have on mainland popular culture? I guess it makes sense that the mainland wouldn't really be a large producer of media given that disposable incomes have not been high for very long, but how influential exactly are we talking? As I understand it there's been a fair level of disconnect (at least until recently) for the mainland and HK/Taiwan, so they're not really cultural juggernauts as you would think them. In particular for Taiwan there hasn't even been ready access from the mainland computer parts fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
And also the majority of the mainland doesn't speak Cantonese so it's not that easy for HK to have an impact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Hong Kong has a huge cultural impact on the Cantonese speaking areas of the mainland, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
And every single movie I've ever seen pre-handover out of Hong Kong had both Mandarin and Cantonese subs, or was dubbed (horribly) into whatever language the market was for. Also you can choose your sub/dub on a lot of the DVDs (Cantonese, Mandarin, or English) and even on Netflix. They still do it post-handover but we're talking about historical influence. There's always been cross-cultural pollination. I mean Shaolin Temple with Jet Li was made in what, 1982, and it was made in mainland China by a Hong Kong production team. I'm sure caberham will be in to weigh in shortly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
I've seen old Shaw Brothers movies from what I'm guessing is the late 60s that have Mandarin dubbing even.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
A lot of Shaw films were filmed/dubbed in Mandarin (much of the films were shot without synchsound and dubbed later by the actors) as they are based out of Singapore even if they were filmed in Hong Kong. Sometimes Shaw would film the same movie twice, with scenes shot using a Singapore star and then the same scenes shot using Hong Kong talent. During Shaw's heyday in the 60s/early 70s, Cantonese cinema was in a decline that didn't see a resurgence until Golden Harvest in the 70s, and even then didn't get going until stars emerged post-Bruce Lee. Taiwanese cinema couldn't compete Shaw's money, either, but they produced a lot of film that made it to Hong Kong and outside of Asia due to coproductions and the massive amount of martial arts cinema being imported to America. It was a law in 1963 that all Hong Kong films had to have English subtitles, and so everything from the 70s-90s will have English and Chinese subs on the prints. Some late 1960s films I own don't have the subs, except Chinese subs during music scenes (the mostly female cinema audience of 1950s/60s Hong Kong would sing along with the songs), and I don't know if they were projected some other way, if they law wasn't enforced until the 70s, or if the vcds are just using tv prints that don't have the subs (though digital Chinese subs to appear on the prints that can't be turned off)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
MeramJert posted:Hong Kong has a huge cultural impact on the Cantonese speaking areas of the mainland, though. The Cantonese speaking Guangdong and Guangxi provinces have always been part of the Hong Kong culturesphere. For the non Cantonese speaking mainlander, the height of HK's cultural influrence was in the 90s. The most influential HK actor to the people who was born after 1980 was hands down Stephen Chow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZuhYJynSk8
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Well, Beijing is rattling its saber and telling Hong Kong that One Country, Two Systems means they better shut up and do what the Communists want. The government says it's a complete coincidence that the paper came out just a week after more than a hundred thousand people gathered in Victoria Park to protest for the rehabilitation of 1989 Tiananmen victims. It is very obviously not a coincidence. Political cartoonists react  
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Oracle posted:And every single movie I've ever seen pre-handover out of Hong Kong had both Mandarin and Cantonese subs, or was dubbed (horribly) into whatever language the market was for FYI German dubs are usually very good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:
Uh, any translations?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
The bottom one is frogs obliviously chillaxing in a pleasantly warm pot while evil communists stoke the fire with wood labeled 'One Country Two Systems' and I can't read anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
I really don't see what HK thought it was going to get. They had rights. Then they joined the PRC. Now they have no rights. Maybe they have a piece of paper that says they have rights. Guess what, PRC citizens have that too. Never helped them. Did they think that by voluntarily joining a dictatorship they were going to somehow weasel out of the part where you have no rights and have to do what the state tells you with zero recourse? Are they just really loving dumb or was the referendum a no choice sort of thing anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I really don't see what HK thought it was going to get. They had rights. Then they joined the PRC. Now they have no rights. Maybe they have a piece of paper that says they have rights. Guess what, PRC citizens have that too. Never helped them. I don't think the residents of HK had a choice either way. HK was going to be returned to China no matter what. If the people were given a choice I'll bet most would have chosen to remain a colony--there were spasmodic freakouts by everyone prior to 1997.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
The closest that got to happening was after the Falklands, where Maggie Thatcher decided she was putting the idea of losing Hong Kong in review. She bruited it to her cabinet, then went on a trip to China to try and negotiate something. However, it quickly became clear that the Chinese WERE willing to take HK militarily if it the British went back on their promise, and the cabinet made it clear Britain was incapable of holding off China should that happen. A plebiscite, if it had happened, wouldn't have meant much. To China, it'd be another Unequal Treaty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Beijing was pretty insistent that Hong Kong was an inalienable part of China, the treaties regarding Britain's control of it were null and void, and there were to be no "three-legged stool" negotiations; that is, no representatives from Hong Kong would join negotiations as Hong Kongers are Chinese and China is already represented by Beijing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Wasn't Hong Kong basically founded by the British?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:The closest that got to happening was after the Falklands, where Maggie Thatcher decided she was putting the idea of losing Hong Kong in review. She bruited it to her cabinet, then went on a trip to China to try and negotiate something. However, it quickly became clear that the Chinese WERE willing to take HK militarily if it the British went back on their promise, and the cabinet made it clear Britain was incapable of holding off China should that happen. Can't have been that hard - I won that scenario in Red Dragon 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Can't have been that hard - I won that scenario in Red Dragon Jesus Christ can you imagine how much the PLA would have to suck to be unable to take Hong Kong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Wasn't Hong Kong basically founded by the British? Basically there was a part that was ceded to the British after the First Opium War and a part that was "leased" for 99 years in 1898. By the time 1997 came around it wasn't really practical to separate them (along with the other territorial bullshit mentioned earlier).
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Jesus Christ can you imagine how much the PLA would have to suck to be unable to take Hong Kong. Apparently the PLA in the 80's really was *that* bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:The closest that got to happening was after the Falklands, where Maggie Thatcher decided she was putting the idea of losing Hong Kong in review. She bruited it to her cabinet, then went on a trip to China to try and negotiate something. However, it quickly became clear that the Chinese WERE willing to take HK militarily if it the British went back on their promise, and the cabinet made it clear Britain was incapable of holding off China should that happen. The Brits tried to find a way to peacefully hand over the Falklands to Argentina too. It only escalated to a hot war because the military Caudillo didn't give the glorious British empire of yesterday an exit plan to step down gracefully.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Wasn't Hong Kong basically founded by the British? There were fishing villages, incense manufactories and other settlements on Hong Kong Island proper before the British seized control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I really don't see what HK thought it was going to get. They had rights. Then they joined the PRC. Now they have no rights. Maybe they have a piece of paper that says they have rights. Guess what, PRC citizens have that too. Never helped them. Depressingly, I think you can apply the same logic to those of us who are voluntarily living within the PRC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Trammel posted:Depressingly, I think you can apply the same logic to those of us who are voluntarily living within the PRC. No, you can't. What are you getting at?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
MeramJert posted:No, you can't. What are you getting at? Depends on how many rights foreigners have in the PRC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
I think the brits could probably have made a go of it. The logistics part would be the hardest, HK was selected because it's defensible and that hasn't changed. It's not like 1980s PLAA could have stopped the RAF from bombing whatever it wanted whenever, and that means no artillery, which means no advantage for the PLA at all. Imagine if the PLA had found out its tank doctrine was flaming rear end on its own against TOW2s and Challengers instead of by proxy. Human wave attacks would have been something to see in the modern firepower age. I think it would have been a competition to see if the British could kill enough Chinese conscripts to make Beijing blink before they ran out of ammunition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Depends on how many rights foreigners have in the PRC. I'm a foreigner in the PRC and I have the right to easily go to the airport literally right now and leave and never come back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Britian should've offered permanent resident status to any Chinese conscript who agreed to lay down arms and surrender. They probably would've won without firing a shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think the brits could probably have made a go of it. The logistics part would be the hardest, HK was selected because it's defensible and that hasn't changed. It's not like 1980s PLAA could have stopped the RAF from bombing whatever it wanted whenever, and that means no artillery, which means no advantage for the PLA at all. Imagine if the PLA had found out its tank doctrine was flaming rear end on its own against TOW2s and Challengers instead of by proxy. Human wave attacks would have been something to see in the modern firepower age. I think it would have been a competition to see if the British could kill enough Chinese conscripts to make Beijing blink before they ran out of ammunition. How is anybody going to stop the PLA from marching to the New Territories? How many carrier UK had at the time? One?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
MeramJert posted:No, you can't. What are you getting at? 100% agreed, the Hong Kong government and citizens were given no choice about their return to PRC sovereignty. The UK should be ashamed of the way it treated HK and the people that lived there. But what I meant was, for those of us who have voluntarily come to live in China, we have all accepted that bargain that says, "I understand I will have no rights, and will have to do what the state tells me with zero recourse". In return, we get other benefits, but we take the bargain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
I guess, but we can just leave at any time we decide we don't like that bargain any more. It's not really that comparable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think the brits could probably have made a go of it. The logistics part would be the hardest, HK was selected because it's defensible and that hasn't changed. It's not like 1980s PLAA could have stopped the RAF from bombing whatever it wanted whenever, and that means no artillery, which means no advantage for the PLA at all. Imagine if the PLA had found out its tank doctrine was flaming rear end on its own against TOW2s and Challengers instead of by proxy. Human wave attacks would have been something to see in the modern firepower age. I think it would have been a competition to see if the British could kill enough Chinese conscripts to make Beijing blink before they ran out of ammunition. The UK isn't like the US. I doubt they could even get the logistics together and get the proper amount of troops from the UK to HK to make any sort of defense. And really, when your lease is up, then it's time to go home. It's not like HK was annexed....it was a lease after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
The New Territories I believe were leased, the rest of the island was ceded in perpetuity but the same as any other country the PRC picked the treaty it preferred and decided that applied to the whole. Of course it would have been a logistical near impossibility to make that distinction too by the time 1997 rolled round. As far as Britain being able to hold onto HK if it came to a hot war, I don't think it would have done so. China would have shut off all supplies to HK (including things like most of the fresh water) and I really don't think Britain would have been capable of sustaining the island without major international support. I really don't know which other countries nearby would have had the capability to give that kind of support and would have been perfectly happy driving the Chinese apoplectic and risk being drawn into a hot war if it happened. The US wouldn't, Japan maybe? The people in HK got screwed but I really don't think there was any realistic way Britain could have held onto the island. The best they could manage was negotiating a decent deal for the government of HK to continue but really all that becomes a piece of paper the minute you're a member of an authoritarian nation state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:
Part of it was, part of it wasn't.  The lightest part was the leased part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
Remember that a bureaucrat in London who has never seen Hong Kong except on a map will have a hard time understanding just how integrated the colony was. I believe that the general idea was that everything north of Boundary Street was untamed wilderness with a few farms and villages, so Britain would just pay China a bunch of cash to renew the lease for another 99 years. When advisers were actually sent to Hong Kong to take a look they were shocked about how Boundary Street was just another normal street and the city continued past straight up to the mountains and beyond. As for China wouldn't just accept the cash and renew the lease, it's part of the national narrative endorsed by the Communist Party. All Chinese territories taken by imperialists like Japan and Britain will be recovered (and anything else like Mongolia or telling the Portuguese to shut the hell up about returning Macao we don't want it yet conveniently forgotten) through the strength of the Party. Letting an imperialist power hold on to a Chinese territory would be like ... letting China hold on to the Isle of Man for another century. Oh, and Hong Kong is secretly being used by the UK and USA to undermine China, which is why we must totally control Hong Kong. It all plays into the narrative of the Party as the defender of China.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 05:10
|
|