On Jul 1, 11:09 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
For that matter, how was the British Colonial government
notably worse than the average Chinese magistrate?


During the majority of British Colonial rules over Hong Kong
Chinese citizen did not have have the same legal standing
as a european or Englishman in a BC courtroom -
Given those parameters - a european could getaway
with murder in Hong Kong. During the transition period
before the British turned over Hong Kong to China, the
British removed this legal discriminatory statute.

Neo wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:09 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
For that matter, how was the British Colonial government
notably worse than the average Chinese magistrate?

During the majority of British Colonial rules over Hong Kong
Chinese citizen did not have have the same legal standing
as a european or Englishman in a BC courtroom -
Given those parameters - a european could getaway
with murder in Hong Kong.  During the transition period
before the British turned over Hong Kong to China, the
British removed this legal discriminatory statute.

Please tell us your source.

--
Oderint dum Metuant- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I read an article in Taiwan’s newspaper. The author is Taiwanese and
he talked about his bad experience with “Royal” Hong Kong police when
he entered HK passport checkpoint at HK airport in 1993, just a few
years before HK turned to China. The “Royal” HK police treated his ROC
passport like a fake document and treated him as if he wanted to stay
in HK illegally. In the end of article, he said he was so glad that HK
returned to China so those “Royal” HK police (actually just Chinese
police) can no longer think they are “higher class Chinese” who are
actually just bunch of watch dogs for their British master in final
years of British colonial rule.

So if those “Royal” Chinese police in HK treated their own people
badly, you can imagine how their British master treated ordinary
Chinese in HK.

Anyway, HK is part of China now. No more British running dogs, no more
“Royal” Chinese people.

====> Original abianchen: abianc...@my-deja.com since May 2000. So click
“view profile”.

Fake abianchen (by psycho Tienxia): various abianc*@*.com but they are
all fake for his own revenge against original abianchen. Tienxia > anti-AbianchenVirus = WanLF = Chairman Mao…

On Jul 2, 9:15 pm, Khitanian <Khitan...@Khitan.com> wrote:



Neo wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:09 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
For that matter, how was the British Colonial government
notably worse than the average Chinese magistrate?

During the majority of British Colonial rules over Hong Kong
Chinese citizen did not have have the same legal standing
as a european or Englishman in a BC courtroom -
Given those parameters - a european could getaway
with murder in Hong Kong.  During the transition period
before the British turned over Hong Kong to China, the
British removed this legal discriminatory statute.

Please tell us your source.

--
Oderint dum Metuant- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 1, 11:09 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
For that matter, how was the British Colonial government
notably worse than the average Chinese magistrate?

During the majority of British Colonial rules over Hong Kong
Chinese citizen did not have have the same legal standing
as a european or Englishman in a BC courtroom -

Given those parameters - a european could getaway
with murder in Hong Kong.

During the transition period
before the British turned over Hong Kong to China, the
British removed this legal discriminatory statute.

On Jul 1, 11:09 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
On Jun 30, 4:26 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
On Jun 29, 11:55 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
[...]
Answer: Its inability to resist foreign aggression
which had inflicted humiliation and
suffering on the Chinese people. Of course, internal
corruption was always a factor during China's long
history. However, if one talked about the last 100 to
150 years, foreign aggression loomed large.

But no larger than the endless internal warfares, the
Taiping Rebellion, the "Nien" (�) as well as the Muslim
rebellions, the boxers, etc.
In comparison, the defeat by European and Japanese was
humiliating but did not affect the daily lives of the
people that much.

Utterly nonsense.
One of the resutls of the Opium Wars was opium could be imported
freely into China. Did not not affect the daily lives of peple that
much? Japanese invasion caused the death of tens of million. Did not
affect the daily lives of the people that much?

I was referring to the period before the 1911 battle
in Canton which was the focus of the poem.

The poem was written after the author had visited the
memorial. But the memorial had triggered a hundred
feelings ranged far beyond the battle in Canton.

The author made numerous references to events before
1911 but none afterwards. It is clear where his focus
was. My comments were based on _his_ focus.

For instance, he mentioned, 五�通商香港失 which were
results of the Opium Wars and the prelude to 100
years of humiliation and suffering.

The lost of HK as well as the opening of the five
international ports were events _before_ 1911.

Yes, they were. And the lost of Hong Kong as well
as other loses were the proximal cause of the revolution.
The Qing governemnt's inablity to fight off fought off
foreign aggression and the loses over the decades had
triggered the revolution and necessitated the sarcafice
of the 72.

I am not arguing how "most Chinese people" feel about
events in Chinese history. I am saying that one
(with a college education) should examine the facts
objectively and should not be clouded by feelings that
may or may not be grounded on facts.

What is not grounded on fact?

Let us say a robber came into a house and in the process
cut off one of the hand of the owner. Let us say the owner
was also having TB at that time. You are kind of saying
the owner shouldn't feel too bad becaause the TB was
causing more pain and suffering. And the owner of the
house shoulf not dwell on the robbery too much.

The opening of the fie international
ports was lumped together with the lost of HK in the
poem, but the ports themselves were actually beneficial
to China.

China lost control of its territory, ports as well as
Hong Kong, is a good thing. Another nonsense.

What harm has free trading in the five ports (note: HK was
not was on of them) brought to the average Chinese citizen?

What harm? Why did the Hong Konger fought the Britain shortly
Britain had taken over Hong Konger?

What has Hong Kongers' gripe with the British Colonial
government has got to do with the trade going through
the five internal ports?

Because harm had been inflicted onto the Chinese people.
Else Hong Kong people would not have fought the Britain
occupiers.

For that matter, how was the British Colonial government
notably worse than the average Chinese magistrate?

Irrelevant. The British colonial government was not conisdered
legitimate. Of coruse, people got used to it and granted it
legitimacy later. But it is a different issue.

One can't summarize history as a series of X -- that
was my point.

May be we can.
"AMERICAN INVULNERABILITY: The Quest for Absolute Security
from 1812 to Star Wars" is the title of a book written by James
Chace, [...]
Anyway, America's series X is continuing.

The book espouses a view. It is not clear that's the
authors' only view. It is clearly not the only view
of the average Americans, otherwise the authors would
not bother to push this view.

Well, they are the expert of their field. If you disagree their
view or my characterization of their view, feel free to espouse
and explain your view.

On Jul 1, 5:22 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:





On Jun 30, 10:33 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 29, 7:38 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 28, 10:01 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 28, 7:46 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 28, 5:49 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 27, 5:37 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"In 1625 Morocco captured an American ship, and, twenty years later a
ship built in Cambridge, Massachuettes, with a crew from that colony,
defeated an Algerian ship at sea, in an action James Fenimore cooper
would later call the first American naval battle."

The USA did not exist in 1625.

No. it did not. But my focus is on the "people."

*Americans*  as a people died not exist in 1625.

In 1625, the Americas were peopled by the British, the French,
 the Spanish, the Dutch, Native Americans Indians, and other
    europeans.

The event of 1625 was introduced by the author of the book, Robert J
Allison as the first of several episodes. According to the author,
"These episodes are improtant, and must be considered as part of a
larger struggle that did not end when the Ottoman Turks were
driven from the gates of Vienna or their navy beaten at Lepanto.
This was more than a struggle for trade routes or territory."
In short, these were seens as a struggle between good and evil.

From 1617- 1625 the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) ships
raided England and other parts of europe - the Ottoman
Empire's expansion effort was driven by economics
and power (the need for more lands) and not ideology.  The
failure of the Ottoman Empire to expand into europe is blamed
on conservative religious sect in the very strongly centralized
goverment of the Ottoman Empire which delayed adaption
of new technologies ( especially in military tactics and
weaponry) along with a series of weak leaders.

"Americans at that time saw these episodes as part of the contest
between Christians and Muslims, between Europeans and Turks
and Moors, and ultimately , between what came to be called
civilizaation and what the newly civilized world would define as
barbarism."

For an idea to expand one doesn't necessarily need
money or land or large military forces -  it just has
to be a good idea. Atleast - that's what  a rationalist
(economics - philosopher  point of of view) like
Adam Smith would like you to believe.  Some
think differently - a behavior economist might
say that one may rationalizes his decisions -
one's actions is dictated by emotions (the heart).

it seems to me that at even today most societies contrast
themselve against other societies using religion.

For sure you are right. But contrasting themselves against other
societies inside churches and academic institutations are one thing.
Contrasting themselves against other societies in foreign policy and
outright aggression supported by militarism is a totally different
thing.

Just because one can use scientific concepts
to support militarism does not mean that scientific concepts are
corrupting people and making them aggressive.
The human mind  learns and evaluates things by comparing
things, people, and place against each other  - but that unto
itself does not make people outright aggressive and prone
to using physical force.   There is something else that you
have missed - human desire.

What argument is better than story of good against evil? Is the axis
of evil really evil? Was Iraq under Saddm posed an existential threat to
America? Do you think a certain American general describing the
military mission in Iraq as a crusade just by accident?

Yes - I do recall George W. Bush / Dick Cheney referring to
North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as the Axis of Evil ( they were
drawing an illusion to WWII's Axis Powers - as a way to
justify their administration's foriegn policy of advocating
the use of military force as a foriegn policy option).  None
of these nations have had a very good relationship with the
USA in the past 40 some odd years and all have denounced
the US government at some time of the other as being
evil. So the feelings between governments appears
mutual (or atleast that what the political spin doctors would
have you believe).

Peace can not be created by using force or reason.
Peace can only be found in the heart.

Diamond is correct. Yet he missed the significance of war as
an orgnizing factor especially for decentralizing power and
ecnomic diversity. Militarism and war may tbe only unifying
principle under that circumstances.

Warfare was the method which created the British
and Chinese Empires - creating a powerful centralized
government,  military , and economy.   However,
Diamond was focus on what were the fundamental
factors gave the British and the Chinese Empires
the foundation and ability to have militarism and
war as an option for expansion.  However - this
does not mean there may other more peaceful
and less destructive options for expansion.

"American Theocracy" is the title of a 2006 book written by Kevin
Phillips. His book is about America today and how its politics
are dominated by religious zealotry

I totally disagree with that premise.

While religious groups are a powerful and
significant force in American politics they
do not dominate it.

Currently - it's the economy
that is dominating US politics.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 2, 12:55 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Jul 1, 5:22 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 30, 10:33 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 29, 7:38 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 28, 10:01 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 28, 7:46 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 28, 5:49 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 27, 5:37 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"In 1625 Morocco captured an American ship, and, twenty years later a
ship built in Cambridge, Massachuettes, with a crew from that colony,
defeated an Algerian ship at sea, in an action James Fenimore cooper
would later call the first American naval battle."

The USA did not exist in 1625.

No. it did not. But my focus is on the "people."

*Americans*  as a people died not exist in 1625.

In 1625, the Americas were peopled by the British, the French,
 the Spanish, the Dutch, Native Americans Indians, and other
    europeans.

Native Americans were not Americans duirng most of the history
written
by westerners, they were Indians.
The whole point is that they, minus the Indians, were united by the
story
of good and evil.They were all against the muslims. They were then,
they
were now.







The event of 1625 was introduced by the author of the book, Robert J
Allison as the first of several episodes. According to the author,
"These episodes are improtant, and must be considered as part of a
larger struggle that did not end when the Ottoman Turks were
driven from the gates of Vienna or their navy beaten at Lepanto.
This was more than a struggle for trade routes or territory."
In short, these were seens as a struggle between good and evil.

From 1617- 1625 the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) ships
raided England and other parts of europe - the Ottoman
Empire's expansion effort was driven by economics
and power (the need for more lands) and not ideology.  The
failure of the Ottoman Empire to expand into europe is blamed
on conservative religious sect in the very strongly centralized
goverment of the Ottoman Empire which delayed adaption
of new technologies ( especially in military tactics and
weaponry) along with a series of weak leaders.

The Ottoman Empire's expansion effort was driven by economics.
But American people, i.e. whites folks living America, did not see
not see their struggle that way. They saw it through the lens of
good and evil. Similarly, a lot of people see the invasion as driven
by economics (oil). Yet many such as the neocons and the
soldiers fighting in the war zone saw it through the lens of good
and evil. They saw it as good American fighting evil muslims.







"Americans at that time saw these episodes as part of the contest
between Christians and Muslims, between Europeans and Turks
and Moors, and ultimately , between what came to be called
civilizaation and what the newly civilized world would define as
barbarism."

For an idea to expand one doesn't necessarily need
money or land or large military forces -  it just has
to be a good idea. Atleast - that's what  a rationalist
(economics - philosopher  point of of view) like
Adam Smith would like you to believe.  Some
think differently - a behavior economist might
say that one may rationalizes his decisions -
one's actions is dictated by emotions (the heart).

it seems to me that at even today most societies contrast
themselve against other societies using religion.

For sure you are right. But contrasting themselves against other
societies inside churches and academic institutations are one thing.
Contrasting themselves against other societies in foreign policy and
outright aggression supported by militarism is a totally different
thing.

Just because one can use scientific concepts
to support militarism does not mean that scientific concepts are
corrupting people and making them aggressive.
The human mind  learns and evaluates things by comparing
things, people, and place against each other  - but that unto
itself does not make people outright aggressive and prone
to using physical force.   There is something else that you
have missed - human desire.

Don't get your point.
An example of contrasting themselves against the other society
through aggression is Tony Blair's "Doctrine of International
community." The international community of his "Doctrine of
international community" is NATO. And it is under the cover of
this new doctrine of good and evil that Nato attacked Serbia.





What argument is better than story of good against evil? Is the axis
of evil really evil? Was Iraq under Saddm posed an existential threat to
America? Do you think a certain American general describing the
military mission in Iraq as a crusade just by accident?

Yes - I do recall George W. Bush / Dick Cheney referring to
North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as the Axis of Evil ( they were
drawing an illusion to WWII's Axis Powers - as a way to
justify their administration's foriegn policy of advocating
the use of military force as a foriegn policy option).  None
of these nations have had a very good relationship with the
USA in the past 40 some odd years and all have denounced
the US government at some time of the other as being
evil. So the feelings between governments appears
mutual (or atleast that what the political spin doctors would
have you believe).

The feeling is mutual. But the issue is which side is taking active
aggression action agaisnt the other in the absence of real threat.
Iraq was invaded, North Korea was sanctioned, and millions had
been spent to destabilize Iran.







Peace can not be created by using force or reason.
Peace can only be found in the heart.

Diamond is correct. Yet he missed the significance of war as
an orgnizing factor especially for decentralizing power and
ecnomic diversity. Militarism and war may tbe only unifying
principle under that circumstances.

Warfare was the method which created the British
and Chinese Empires - creating a powerful centralized
government,  military , and economy.   However,
Diamond was focus on what were the fundamental
factors gave the British and the Chinese Empires
the foundation and ability to have militarism and
war as an option for expansion.  However - this
does not mean there may other more peaceful
and less destructive options for expansion.

"American Theocracy" is the title of a 2006 book written by Kevin
Phillips. His book is about America today and how its politics
are dominated by religious zealotry

I totally disagree with that premise.

While religious groups are a powerful and
significant force in American politics they
do not dominate it.

Currently - it's the economy
that is dominating US politics.

Some trends are transient. Some trends are long term. And it takes
some expertise to differentate the short term from the long term.
According to Kevin Phillips, the North won the military civil war.
The
South won the religious civil war.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 2, 12:55 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Jul 1, 5:22 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 30, 10:33 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 29, 7:38 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 28, 10:01 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 28, 7:46 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 28, 5:49 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 27, 5:37 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"In 1625 Morocco captured an American ship, and, twenty years later a
ship built in Cambridge, Massachuettes, with a crew from that colony,
defeated an Algerian ship at sea, in an action James Fenimore cooper
would later call the first American naval battle."

The USA did not exist in 1625.

No. it did not. But my focus is on the "people."

*Americans*  as a people died not exist in 1625.

In 1625, the Americas were peopled by the British, the French,
 the Spanish, the Dutch, Native Americans Indians, and other
    europeans.

Native Americans were not Americans duirng most of the history
written by westerners, they were Indians.

The whole point is that they, minus the Indians, were united by the
story of good and evil.They were all against the muslims. They
were then, they were now.

The Ottoman Empire's expansion effort was driven by economics.
But American people, i.e. whites folks living America, did not see
not see their struggle that way. They saw it through the lens of
good and evil. Similarly, a lot of people see the invasion as driven
by economics (oil). Yet many such as the neocons and the
soldiers fighting in the war zone saw it through the lens of good
and evil. They saw it as good American fighting evil muslims.

Don't get your point.
An example of contrasting themselves against the other society
through aggression is Tony Blair's "Doctrine of International
community." The international community of his "Doctrine of
international community" is NATO. And it is under the cover of
this new doctrine of good and evil that Nato attacked Serbia.

For that matter, how was the British Colonial government
notably worse than the average Chinese magistrate?

During the majority of British Colonial rules over Hong Kong
Chinese citizen did not have have the same legal standing
as a european or Englishman in a BC courtroom -
Given those parameters - a european could getaway
with murder in Hong Kong. During the transition period
before the British turned over Hong Kong to China, the
British removed this legal discriminatory statute.

I read an article in Taiwan’s newspaper. The author is Taiwanese and
he talked about his bad experience with “Royal� Hong Kong police when
he entered HK passport checkpoint at HK airport in 1993, just a few
years before HK turned to China. The “Royal� HK police treated his ROC
passport like a fake document and treated him as if he wanted to stay
in HK illegally. In the end of article, he said he was so glad that HK
returned to China so those “Royal� HK police (actually just Chinese
police) can no longer think they are “higher class Chinese� who are
actually just bunch of watch dogs for their British master in final
years of British colonial rule.

So if those “Royal� Chinese police in HK treated their own people
badly, you can imagine how their British master treated ordinary
Chinese in HK.

Anyway, HK is part of China now. No more British running dogs, no more
“Royal� Chinese people.

Neo wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:09 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
For that matter, how was the British Colonial government
notably worse than the average Chinese magistrate?

During the majority of British Colonial rules over Hong Kong
Chinese citizen did not have have the same legal standing
as a european or Englishman in a BC courtroom -

Europeans and Chinese were likely to have different
rights and privileges, but I don't think the Chinese
lacked stand in a HK court.  At the same time I believe
the HK courts had jurisdiction over Britons as well
as other Europeans.

Given those parameters - a european could getaway
with murder in Hong Kong.

Perhaps, but so would a well connected person in
a Chinese court.  In fact, far more likely.

During the transition period
before the British turned over Hong Kong to China, the
British removed this legal discriminatory statute.

Reference?

Tak To:

For that matter, how was the British Colonial government
notably worse than the average Chinese magistrate?

Neo:

During the majority of British Colonial rules over Hong Kong
Chinese citizen did not have have the same legal standing
as a european or Englishman in a BC courtroom -
Given those parameters - a european could getaway
with murder in Hong Kong.  During the transition period
before the British turned over Hong Kong to China, the
British removed this legal discriminatory statute.

Admirable ignorance ..

But parading conjectures as facts is most unwise. In 1841 HK
was seceded to the British. And, the first civilian governor
did arrived until 1844. The first ever census, revealed that
HK had 25,000 inhabitants in HK.  Nearly all the locals were
laborers, fishermen and farmers.

London promised him that HK would not be in the opium trade.

To finance a civilian government, he must rely on funds from
the UK Admiralty (HK was deemed important militarily and was
partly funded by UK's general revenues), and local taxations
and fees.

Europeans must obey the British law, and British courts were
established to hear disputes between them. Whereas, disputes
among Chinese were adjudicated the traditional way: in front
of a panel of respected Chinese elders, in HK's 文武廟, where
大清律例 (which was far harsher than British laws, prevailed.

On Jul 3, 3:29 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
Neo wrote:
On Jul 1, 11:09 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
For that matter, how was the British Colonial government
notably worse than the average Chinese magistrate?
During the majority of British Colonial rules over Hong Kong
Chinese citizen did not have have the same legal standing
as a european or Englishman in a BC courtroom -
Europeans and Chinese were likely to have different
rights and privileges, but I don't think the Chinese
lacked stand in a HK court.  At the same time I believe
the HK courts had jurisdiction over Britons as well
as other Europeans.

Hong Kong courts until the last ten years of British
rule gave preference to Britons and other europeans
over Asians - If I recall correctly, an asian could not
testify against a european - the british has set up
a chinese version of JIm Crow in Hong Kong.

The reason that the legendary kung fu fighter Bruce Lee
left Hong Kong for the USA was because he had a serious
fight with europeans and had to avoid standing trial in a
Colonial British Court where he knew he would not get
a fair trial ( or plead self defense).

Given those parameters - a european could getaway
with murder in Hong Kong.
Perhaps, but so would a well connected person in
a Chinese court.  In fact, far more likely.

Irrelevant.

So far I have not encounter any historical data
that would suggest that the Chinese court system
was racially discriminatory between the 1850-1980s
nor do I have any reports that their legal system
was any more corrupt than the British Colonial
Court System.
.

During the transition period
before the British turned over Hong Kong to China, the
British removed this legal discriminatory statute.
Reference?

It's part of the hong kong's history - look it up.

abianc...@my-deja.com wrote:
I read an article in Taiwan’s newspaper. The author is Taiwanese and
he talked about his bad experience with “Royal” Hong Kong police when
he entered HK passport checkpoint at HK airport in 1993, just a few
years before HK turned to China. The “Royal” HK police treated his ROC
passport like a fake document and treated him as if he wanted to stay
in HK illegally. In the end of article, he said he was so glad that HK
returned to China so those “Royal” HK police (actually just Chinese
police) can no longer think they are “higher class Chinese” who are
actually just bunch of watch dogs for their British master in final
years of British colonial rule.

So if those “Royal” Chinese police in HK treated their own people
badly, you can imagine how their British master treated ordinary
Chinese in HK.

Anyway, HK is part of China now. No more British running dogs, no more
“Royal” Chinese people.

Khitanian can verify this, but I have heard that the main
task of the "Political Section" of the HK Police was to
prevent Taiwan spies from infiltrating into China since
the late 60's.  The British colonial government has been
quieting cooperating with the PRC for quite sometime.
Taiwan did not exactly win the hearts of the HK people
by harboring fugitives the HK law, notably corrupted
ex-police officers.

In any case, the attitude of the HK policer officer your
friend encountered had little to do with the colonial
past.  Anti-immigrant sentiments has always been high.
HKers felt superior not because of their association
with the Britons, but because of the "economic miracle"
that they believed they have created all by themselves.
You should have seen how they reacted to the ethnic
Chinese boat people from Vietnam in the 70's.

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To                                            ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
  [taode takto ~{LU5B~}]      NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ordinary HKers are fine. Some of them went to Taiwan for college
education. In the 50s, 60s, there’s pro-KMT sentiment in HK. Nowadays,
Taiwan is the only Chinese society practices democracy, some HKers
envy it, you can ask BYS.

Remember in the 90s, a HK Chinese woman who was a very high ranking HK
official visiting London, she got interrogated at London airport as if
she tried to stay in Britain illegally, she was furious. That’s how
British government treated her colonial people in HK just like how
their HK Chinese running dogs treated their own Chinese people. All
the same!

A lot of people are glad that HK returned to China so no more “Royal”
British running dogs. Now those former “Royal” British running dogs
have to carry PRC HKSAR passport, even some of them are not happy,
tough! New passport does look better than second class citizen’s
British HK passport, don’t you agree? The link:

http://ccoffset.com/images/product/e-Passport%20Cover-1.jpg

====> Original abianchen: abianc...@my-deja.com since May 2000. So click
“view profile”.

Fake abianchen (by psycho Tienxia): various abianc*@*.com but they are
all fake for his own revenge against original abianchen. Tienxia > anti-AbianchenVirus = WanLF = Chairman Mao…

On Jul 3, 1:23 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:



abianc...@my-deja.com wrote:
I read an article in Taiwan’s newspaper. The author is Taiwanese and
he talked about his bad experience with “Royal” Hong Kong police when
he entered HK passport checkpoint at HK airport in 1993, just a few
years before HK turned to China. The “Royal” HK police treated his ROC
passport like a fake document and treated him as if he wanted to stay
in HK illegally. In the end of article, he said he was so glad that HK
returned to China so those “Royal” HK police (actually just Chinese
police) can no longer think they are “higher class Chinese” who are
actually just bunch of watch dogs for their British master in final
years of British colonial rule.

So if those “Royal” Chinese police in HK treated their own people
badly, you can imagine how their British master treated ordinary
Chinese in HK.

Anyway, HK is part of China now. No more British running dogs, no more
“Royal” Chinese people.

Khitanian can verify this, but I have heard that the main
task of the "Political Section" of the HK Police was to
prevent Taiwan spies from infiltrating into China since
the late 60's.  The British colonial government has been
quieting cooperating with the PRC for quite sometime.
Taiwan did not exactly win the hearts of the HK people
by harboring fugitives the HK law, notably corrupted
ex-police officers.

In any case, the attitude of the HK policer officer your
friend encountered had little to do with the colonial
past.  Anti-immigrant sentiments has always been high.
HKers felt superior not because of their association
with the Britons, but because of the "economic miracle"
that they believed they have created all by themselves.
You should have seen how they reacted to the ethnic
Chinese boat people from Vietnam in the 70's.

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To                                            ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
  [taode takto ~{LU5B~}]      NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

London promised him that HK would not be in the opium trade.

LOL.
Regardless of whatever *spin control* you heard from *London*
I know for a fact that europeans used Hong Kong as a port for the
opium trade.

On Jul 3, 9:23 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:





On Jul 2, 12:55 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 1, 5:22 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 30, 10:33 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 29, 7:38 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 28, 10:01 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 28, 7:46 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 28, 5:49 pm, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 27, 5:37 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"In 1625 Morocco captured an American ship, and, twenty years later a
ship built in Cambridge, Massachuettes, with a crew from that colony,
defeated an Algerian ship at sea, in an action James Fenimore cooper
would later call the first American naval battle."

The USA did not exist in 1625.

No. it did not. But my focus is on the "people."

*Americans*  as a people died not exist in 1625.

In 1625, the Americas were peopled by the British, the French,
 the Spanish, the Dutch, Native Americans Indians, and other
    europeans.

Native Americans were not Americans duirng most of the history
written by westerners, they were Indians.

Your exclusion of significant part of American
civilizations (e.g. Mayan, Inca, Lakota, Intuit,etc)
pushes the reader to one conclusion - via
Occam's razor - you have reduced yourself
to white-european-christian civilization

The whole point is that they, minus the Indians, were united by the
story of good and evil.They were all against the muslims. They
were then,  they  were now.

During the Crusades - western white european
christian civilizaation did unite against the Islamic
world - However, with the Church Reformation
and the end  of the Ottoman Empire expansion
this united front dissolved into infighting among
various competing european nations.
Westernern colonial forces were not united but
competed for land and power - conquering the
Americas in a quest for power, glory, wealth,
and land.  After the Ottaman Empire faded into
the background in the 1700's the western
imperial factions focused not on muslims but
conquering the New Worlds ( Americas, Africa,
and Australia) and plundering Asia ( China,
India).  Essentially - Westerners bypassed
the trade routes controlled by the islamic
world.  It was only with the discovery of
oil that the middle east has become of
interest to the Western world - the monies
from oil export has propelled the Middle East
into an  economic renewal.

The Ottoman Empire's expansion effort was driven by economics.
But American people, i.e. whites folks living America, did not see
not see their struggle that way. They saw it through the lens of
good and evil. Similarly, a lot of people see the invasion as driven
by economics (oil). Yet many such as the neocons and the
soldiers fighting in the war zone saw it through the lens of good
and evil. They saw it as good American fighting evil muslims.

Some white european colonist like the Pilgrims that land on
Plymouth, Massachesetts came to the USA to avoid
religious persecution and to practice their religious faith.
Others white european colonists like the French Trappers
in Canada and along the Mississipii - were driven soley
by economics of the time ( imported furs were popular in
Europe in the 1600-1700s ) . White european colonist
who were given huge tracts of land like Lord Baltimore
were also driven (atleast in part) by money.   Christopher
Columbus was also driven by money too.  

Today -
USA neocons often do use the idea of good vs evil  to
advocate the use of military force ( as does other
governments like those of Iran and North Korea ).

However, given that there are evil muslims then there must
be a good muslim too.  Otherwise, one would say
just muslim (and that would explicitly mean that
person was evil).  Another way of realizing this is
when a person says:

An only good <ethnic-type-A> is a dead <ethnic-type-A>.

where <ethnic-type-A> is an term for a particular type of ethnic
grouping

Don't get your point.
An example of contrasting themselves against the other society
through aggression is Tony Blair's "Doctrine of International
community." The international community of his "Doctrine of
international community" is NATO. And it is under the cover of
this new doctrine of good and evil that Nato attacked Serbia.

Words do not create aggression.
Words are only a reflection of what is inside your head.
Contrast does not create aggression
Fear, Hatred, anger can cause aggression.
you need to ask yourself
 why do I feel this way?

Initially - because Serbia was the most
powerful of the civil war factions.  However,
in order to keep the peace NATO end
up fighting with various smaller militia
groups of various factions.  Civil Wars
are like that.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

London promised him that HK would not be in the opium trade.

Neo:

LOL.
Regardless of whatever *spin control* you heard from *London*
I know for a fact that europeans used Hong Kong as a port for the
opium trade.

Commendable ignorance ....

Nonetheless, one is most unwise to perpetrate prejudices and
conjectures as historical facts. The opium trade was a mono-
poly of the Canton System. It was designed by the Qing court
to ensure a fair share of the opium trade profits flowed in-
to the royal coffer.

Only a few 公行's were permitted to trade with foreigners.

By imperial decree, all trades must be conducted in a Canton
district known as Thirteen Factories along the harbor and no
-where else. Foreigners were not allowed to stay beyond the
trading season. Later, it was relaxed to permit them to stay
in Macau and Hong Kong Island (a pirate heaven) post season.
Most, preferred to stay in the classier Macau.

HK, was merely Motel 8 of the Opium trade ....

Commendable ignorance ....

Nonetheless, one is most unwise to perpetrate prejudices and
conjectures as historical facts. The opium trade was a mono-
poly of the Canton System. It was designed by the Qing court
to ensure a fair share of the opium trade profits flowed in-
to the royal coffer.

Only a few 公行's were permitted to trade with foreigners.

By imperial decree, all trades must be conducted in a Canton
district known as Thirteen Factories along the harbor and no
-where else. Foreigners were not allowed to stay beyond the
trading season. Later, it was relaxed to permit them to stay
in Macau and Hong Kong Island (a pirate heaven) post season.
Most, preferred to stay in the classier Macau.

HK, was merely Motel 8 of the Opium trade ....

But still be in the Opium trade, thereby contradicting
your previous claim.

The following might be of interest:

a) The Qing government has never allowed the import of
opium officially (except for a small amount for medicinal
use). Thus all opium transactions were illegal,
and any ship carrying opium was technically smuggling.