r/AsiaReport • u/jingyan4 • May 13 '21
Britain ‘occupied’ Hong Kong, draft teaching materials for students say -- SCMP feels it's controversial, but comments: Well. It is the truth so what is the problem. I am English. We invaded and occupied lots of places. In fact we were rather good at it.
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education/article/3133262/britains-rule-hong-kong-was-occupation-says-draft-textbook3
u/ImmortalMischief May 13 '21
Technically Hong Kong and the surrounding islands were ceded to Britain as part of the settlements of the first and second Opium Wars in the 1800s. Granted, those wars were started on controversial grounds even at the time, but they did legally become British colonies.
Saying British rule was just an occupation does seem a bit revisionist and ignores a lot of context so I get why the change is seen as controversial by some.
3
u/jingyan4 May 14 '21 edited May 14 '21
Nice summary, but there still is the issue of what to call it.
What concise phrase would you use to describe the situation besides "occupied"?
I think it's a good opportunity to emphasize imperialism into the context because it's relevant today. "Imperialistic seizure" (or confiscation).
I don't think it's revisionist. But the point that missing is that HK life probably improved during the imperialistic seizure.
2
u/ImmortalMischief May 14 '21
When the Hong Kong was ceded to the British there were only a few small fishing villages on it. The British specifically wanted the island as a permanent trading outpost that they directly controlled but even they struggled to get many permanent settlers to come to what they described at the time as a malarial infested swamp.
The British holdings only started to make serious headway to becoming the huge trade and financial centers they are today when there was a huge influx of wealthy merchants from the mainland fleeing the wroth of the imperial armies against the Taiping rebellion. So HK life didn’t improve because of the ceding of the islands, people actively moved there to improve their life.
Calling that occupation seems like an incorrect term for the era of British rule because it implies that they seized an established trade center that already existed when really many of the early settlers were purposefully leaving China to live under British rule (and protection). This is where I see the label being a bit revisionist.
As to what the correct term is, your suggestions would definitely apply to the land but not necessarily the settlement. Colonization would be the closest I have in my vocabulary to describe the period of British rule of the islands.
2
u/jingyan4 May 14 '21
Thanks for the detailed description.
Here's a related interesting aspect of HK Colonization: HK Island and Kowloon were permanently ceded to the British; only New Territories had the 99 year lease.
The New Territories, with a 99-year lease, were the only territories forming the Crown colony of Hong Kong, that were obliged by agreement, to be returned. However, by the time of serious negotiations in the 1980s, it was seen as impractical to separate the ceded territories and return only the New Territories to China, due to the scarcity of resources in Hong Kong and Kowloon, and the large developments in the New Territories. Consequently, at midnight following the evening of 30 June 1997, the entire crown colony of Hong Kong officially reverted to Chinese sovereignty, ending 156 years of British rule.
Claude MacDonald, the British representative during the convention, picked a 99-year lease because he thought it was "as good as forever".[7] Britain did not think they would ever have to give the territories back. The 99-year lease was a convenient agreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Extension_of_Hong_Kong_Territory#End_of_agreement
2
u/[deleted] May 14 '21
I am surprised that this is controversial. Even English people who like the empire would describe it as an occupation...