Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 233 posts

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#51

Post by [deleted] »

wonnage wrote: post #42
arcticbull wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving up Hong Kong isn't necessarily the "right thing" - Hong Kong Island was ceded to the UK in perpetuity ages ago, in the 1840s. Kowloon and the New Territories were on a 99 year lease expiring in 1997. The UK giving up Hong Kong Island is as "right" as America ceding California to the Spaniards in the late 1990s IMO. Both defeats occurred around the same time. The people of Hong Kong were as much Chinese IMO as…

By this logic China ought to have invaded Taiwan ages ago because it's all peachy once you win

[deleted]

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#52

Post by euroderf »

arcticbull wrote: post #16
eitland wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think you are missing key details: Britain has already given up Hong Kong, i.e. (edit-->) according to how I understand you( The problem with China is they have broken the agreement on how they should rule Hong Kong during the first 50 years, isn't it?

Giving up Hong Kong isn't necessarily the "right thing" - Hong Kong Island was ceded to the UK in perpetuity ages ago, in the 1840s. Kowloon and the New Territories were on a 99 year lease expiring in 1997. The UK giving up Hong Kong Island is as "right" as America ceding California to the Spaniards in the late 1990s IMO. Both defeats occurred around the same time. The people of Hong Kong were as much Chinese IMO as…

Late-breaking correction: "Two Countries, One System".

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#53

Post by arcticbull »

wonnage wrote: post #42
arcticbull wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving up Hong Kong isn't necessarily the "right thing" - Hong Kong Island was ceded to the UK in perpetuity ages ago, in the 1840s. Kowloon and the New Territories were on a 99 year lease expiring in 1997. The UK giving up Hong Kong Island is as "right" as America ceding California to the Spaniards in the late 1990s IMO. Both defeats occurred around the same time. The people of Hong Kong were as much Chinese IMO as…

By this logic China ought to have invaded Taiwan ages ago because it's all peachy once you win

I don't think that would be much different than the UK invading say Gibraltar in 1704. I'm not going to advocate for it but if they did it, and held their possession for a few hundred years (content with what the capture did for their political posture) then yes, we'd be having a different conversation. Possession is 9/10ths of geopolitics. A few hundred years from now, the population of Taiwan would likely have a very different opinion of the matter.

At that point I suspect there'd be quite a lot of resistance to breaking them away from the mainland too.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#54

Post by powerapple »

arcticbull wrote: post #46
wonnage wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hong Kong and Macau are relics of the colonial era and exerting "iron-fisted" control there is no different from exerting it over, say, Shanghai

Artifacts of the era, sure, but I think that's a very incomplete take. IMO they're closer to the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon than they are to Shanghai. [1] The people of Hong Kong were British Citizens until 1997, and the citizens of Macau, Portuguese citizens until 1999 (it's a little more complicated there, it's ~1981-1999, depending). Just as the Miquelonians are French citizens - not British, not Canadian a…

As colonial power, they can issue passports for oversea citizens, it does not mean anything. When returning to China, citizens are given a choice to take whichever passport they choose. To fix a colonial problem, you need to have the power to confront them, British left Hong Kong, and Portuguese left Macau not because those details, because they couldn't hold on to it

As in Sri Lanka or Bangladesh, British still owns properties legally from colonial age, and they are able to extract wealth legally. They have papers, documents and everything. Does legal papers make it right?

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#55

Post by Neil44 »

Santosh83 wrote: post #13

If your occupied territory is far from the main seat of your remnant empire, you MUST send in as many troops as possible in the short term and then as many immigrants as possible in the long term, to consolidate your overseas hold by means of demographic claim. There is no great mystery here. What is interesting is how this behaviour from the Western nations is tacitly ignored but somehow China asserting its claim ov…

It reads to me like you made this post without any real knowledge of the Falkland islands or their history.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#56

Post by [deleted] »

powerapple wrote: post #32
LAC-Tech wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no great conspiracy here. The vast majority of people in Taiwan do not want to be a part of the PRC. The vast majority of people in the Falklands want to remain a British Overseas Territory.

It doesn't matter. You can kidnap a daughter from a poor family and now she doesn't want to to back. Yes, we should respect her decision, but it does not make kidnapping right. It is the result of the colonial age.

[deleted]

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#57

Post by jokethrowaway »

kebman wrote: post #37
sbacic wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sure that can be alleviated with with and good leadership, however. I very much doubt it - one of the reasons we are in this mess is some 80+ years of human capital devastation - we have nowhere to draw experts or leaders from anymore.

Hm, that's very sad to hear... What would you do about it?

Remove inefficient governments, privatise all public services, let the market clean up the mess and attract foreign capital through zero taxation and lack of regulations.

You need rich foreign expats, tired of paying 50% of their salaries in exchange for run down cities and homelessness, creating value in the country.

If tourism is your only strategy you won't go far.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#58

Post by arcticbull »

powerapple wrote: post #54
arcticbull wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artifacts of the era, sure, but I think that's a very incomplete take. IMO they're closer to the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon than they are to Shanghai. [1] The people of Hong Kong were British Citizens until 1997, and the citizens of Macau, Portuguese citizens until 1999 (it's a little more complicated there, it's ~1981-1999, depending). Just as the Miquelonians are French citizens - not British, not Canadian a…

As colonial power, they can issue passports for oversea citizens, it does not mean anything. When returning to China, citizens are given a choice to take whichever passport they choose. To fix a colonial problem, you need to have the power to confront them, British left Hong Kong, and Portuguese left Macau not because those details, because they couldn't hold on to it As in Sri Lanka or Bangladesh, British still owns…

For clarity (1) "As colonial power, they can issue passports for oversea citizens, it does not mean anything." -- French folks living in any Overseas Territories are French-French, EU citizens free to live anywhere in the EU or Metropolitan France. This is not true of for instance folks born in British Overseas Territories. So YMMV. Depends on the nation. Your take is more a reflection of UK policy than colonial policy.

(2) "When returning to China, citizens are given a choice to take whichever passport they choose." - Unfortunately they were not. You could register as a BN(O), a British National (Overseas) which conveyed no right of abode anywhere on Earth - not in the UK, not in the EU - but when combined with an HKID offered you one complete 'passport.' Valid for permanent residency in Hong Kong plus consular protection of the British when traveling abroad that the PRC has chosen not to respect. Or you could be a Hong Kong (SAR) Citizen if the PRC would take you, which roughly required you to be ethnically Chinese. BN(O) registration has been closed for years I believe.

I think Macau followed a similar model, with SAR passports, but I'm not 100% sure.

(3) "To fix a colonial problem, you need to have the power to confront them, British left Hong Kong, and Portuguese left Macau not because those details, because they couldn't hold on to it." - Do you think the French could defend St Pierre and Miequelon? From America? I agree that Portugal could not defend Macau and the UK could not defend Hong Kong but that’s not really all there is to it - see Taiwan.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#59

Post by dongping »

arcticbull wrote: post #16
eitland wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think you are missing key details: Britain has already given up Hong Kong, i.e. (edit-->) according to how I understand you( The problem with China is they have broken the agreement on how they should rule Hong Kong during the first 50 years, isn't it?

Giving up Hong Kong isn't necessarily the "right thing" - Hong Kong Island was ceded to the UK in perpetuity ages ago, in the 1840s. Kowloon and the New Territories were on a 99 year lease expiring in 1997. The UK giving up Hong Kong Island is as "right" as America ceding California to the Spaniards in the late 1990s IMO. Both defeats occurred around the same time. The people of Hong Kong were as much Chinese IMO as…

> The people of Hong Kong were as much Chinese IMO as the Californians are Spanish.

This is plainly wrong. The population distribution of Cantonese speakers shows that Hong Kong is only a small part of the Cantonese speaking region. [1]

And although the situation apparently has changed, at 1997, 40 percent of Hong Kong people identified themselves as "Hong Konger and Chinese", together with the 20 percent identifying themselves solely as Chinese, makes up the majority. [2] I would think that at 1997, there were far less than 60 percent of Californian consider themselves as Spaniard at all.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese#/media/File:Ping_and...

[2] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/08/26/almost-n...

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#60

Post by [deleted] »

dongping wrote: post #59
arcticbull wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving up Hong Kong isn't necessarily the "right thing" - Hong Kong Island was ceded to the UK in perpetuity ages ago, in the 1840s. Kowloon and the New Territories were on a 99 year lease expiring in 1997. The UK giving up Hong Kong Island is as "right" as America ceding California to the Spaniards in the late 1990s IMO. Both defeats occurred around the same time. The people of Hong Kong were as much Chinese IMO as…

> The people of Hong Kong were as much Chinese IMO as the Californians are Spanish. This is plainly wrong. The population distribution of Cantonese speakers shows that Hong Kong is only a small part of the Cantonese speaking region. [1] And although the situation apparently has changed, at 1997, 40 percent of Hong Kong people identified themselves as "Hong Konger and Chinese", together with the 20 percent identifying…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN