British didn't colonize Hong Kong People

[ManUNITEDglory]

I'm Indian Hong Konger myself and plenty of times some Hong Kong people say they were colonized but this does not make sense whatsoever if you read it's history.



For example this is what it said.


" The British empire first colonized the empty Hong Kong Island in 1842, however it was in 1898 - 1997 that Hong Kong truly became an colony when the British empire added the New territories which constituted 86.2% of Hong Kong's modern territory, and it was this time that Chinese migrants (mostly Cantonese) started entering to this colony. It is today one of the world's leading international financial centers, and is ranked as the 5th world city. It is also the eighth most traded currency in the world.[21] "


When the union flag was raised over Possession Point on 26 January 1841, the population of Hong Kong island was about 7,450, mostly Tanka fishermen and Hakka charcoal burners living in a number of coastal villages.In the 1850s large numbers of Chinese would emigrate from China to Hong Kong due to the Taiping Rebellion.


1. To me, this suggest only the island of Hong Kong land was colonized and not the people, it was the people who were invited to immigrate to be colonized. You could have choose not to immigrate but you wanted to and this was what made hong kong people be under british rule not because Hong Kong was already a population with many people

2. For me being a colony is when you live in a piece of land with already have a massive population and take over by force, however you can't call yourself a colonized people of British invaders when you immigrated in almost empty land that was under british before you migrated because this doesn't show hong kong people were colonized they just needed to live under british rule and laws.

99.9999% of Hong Kong people are basically migrant to british colony

 

[ManUNITEDglory]

Any opinion?

Do you still think it's correct to say Hong Kong people were colonized by British? I just find it so strange to make claims about being colonized when they basically immigrated there to be ruled under british law and government

 

[Fsjal]

I'm surprised that you have all these threads about Hong Kong. Why are you so interested?

 

[Fattyacids]

I'm surprised that you have all these threads about Hong Kong. Why are you so interested?

Seems like he is indeed an Indian hong konger.

 

[帅的一匹]

India was not colonized by British either.

 

[INDIC]

India was not colonized by British either.

British didn't loot Hongkong unlike their plunder of India.

 

[Hafizzz]

Seems like he is indeed an Indian hong konger.

If he is a "Hong Kongese" then he should be able to read Chinese and speak Cantonese.

 

[Kolaps]

It's true that India was never being colonized by the British.

Many of Indian leaders at the time think so...until they went to Europe and know the meaning of colony.

HK was lend to British by Qing Dynasty to be precisely. But British people have different perspective about HK.

 

[INDIC]

It's true that India was never being colonized by the British.

Many of Indian leaders at the time think so...until they went to Europe and know the meaning of colony.

HK was lend to British by Qing Dynasty to be precisely. But British people have different perspective about HK.

That's not true. There was widespread revolt across India in 1857 against British, all the Indian revolutionaries declared old Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar as their symbolic leader who was exiled to Burma after the suppression of the revolt. Throughout those period some sort of anti-British revolt was brewing across India, there is a huge list of it.

The Western educated leaders started the new phase of anti-British movement in early 1900s.

 

[vostok]

The Anglo-Saxons have created a number of external strong points, where financial flows of the region are regulated and which had previously (some still do) been naval bases - Singapur, Hong Kong, Qatar, Ciprus, Bahamian and Virginian islands.
From a technical point of view, Hong Kong was a colony of Britain, no doubt.

 

[cloud_9]

HK'ers always whine about the good old times under the crown

 

[dabong1]

I'm Indian Hong Konger myself and plenty of times some Hong Kong people say they were colonized but this does not make sense whatsoever if you read it's history.

And of course you would have no problem if the british ruled a little island of the coast of india which had a few tamil fisherman living there and which then saw an influx of migrant indian workers under british rule?

For example this is what it said.

" The British empire first colonized the empty Hong Kong Island in 1842, however it was in 1898 - 1997 that Hong Kong truly became an colony when the British empire added the New territories which constituted 86.2% of Hong Kong's modern territory, and it was this time that Chinese migrants (mostly Cantonese) started entering to this colony. It is today one of the world's leading international financial centers, and is ranked as the 5th world city. It is also the eighth most traded currency in the world.[21] "

Hong Kong became a colony of the British Empire after the First Opium War (1839–42)

In 1841, a rough outline for a treaty was sent for the guidance of Plenipotentiary Charles Elliot. It had a blank after the words "the cession of the islands of _____". Pottinger sent this old draft treaty on shore, with the letter s struck out of islands and the words Hong Kong placed after it.[3] Robert Montgomery Martin, treasurer of Hong Kong, wrote in an official report:

The terms of peace having been read, Elepoo the senior commissioner paused, expecting something more, and at length said "is that all?" Mr. Morrison enquired of Lieutenant-colonel Malcolm if there was anything else, and being answered in the negative, Elepoo immediately and with great tact closed the negotiation by saying, "all shall be granted—it is settled—it is finished."[3]

The Qing government agreed to make Hong Kong Island a crown colony, ceding it to the British Queen "in perpetuity" (常遠 in Chinese version) to provide British traders with a harbour where they could unload their goods (Article III). Pottinger was later appointed the first governor of Hong Kong.

When the union flag was raised over Possession Point on 26 January 1841, the population of Hong Kong island was about 7,450, mostly Tanka fishermen and Hakka charcoal burners living in a number of coastal villages.In the 1850s large numbers of Chinese would emigrate from China to Hong Kong due to the Taiping Rebellion.

The british signed the treaty with the Qing Govt and not the Tanka fishermen and Hakka charcoal burners.

1. To me, this suggest only the island of Hong Kong land was colonized and not the people, it was the people who were invited to immigrate to be colonized. You could have choose not to immigrate but you wanted to and this was what made hong kong people be under british rule not because Hong Kong was already a population with many people

2. For me being a colony is when you live in a piece of land with already have a massive population and take over by force, however you can't call yourself a colonized people of British invaders when you immigrated in almost empty land that was under british before you migrated because this doesn't show hong kong people were colonized they just needed to live under british rule and laws.

99.9999% of Hong Kong people are basically migrant to british colony

And the british colony was part of china way longer then it was part of the british empire.

 

[Airboss786]

I'm Indian Hong Konger myself and plenty of times some Hong Kong people say they were colonized but this does not make sense whatsoever if you read it's history.



For example this is what it said.


" The British empire first colonized the empty Hong Kong Island in 1842, however it was in 1898 - 1997 that Hong Kong truly became an colony when the British empire added the New territories which constituted 86.2% of Hong Kong's modern territory, and it was this time that Chinese migrants (mostly Cantonese) started entering to this colony. It is today one of the world's leading international financial centers, and is ranked as the 5th world city. It is also the eighth most traded currency in the world.[21] "


When the union flag was raised over Possession Point on 26 January 1841, the population of Hong Kong island was about 7,450, mostly Tanka fishermen and Hakka charcoal burners living in a number of coastal villages.In the 1850s large numbers of Chinese would emigrate from China to Hong Kong due to the Taiping Rebellion.

Really!!!!How come, the Brits got the 'Yellow Fever'!


1. To me, this suggest only the island of Hong Kong land was colonized and not the people, it was the people who were invited to immigrate to be colonized. You could have choose not to immigrate but you wanted to and this was what made hong kong people be under british rule not because Hong Kong was already a population with many people

2. For me being a colony is when you live in a piece of land with already have a massive population and take over by force, however you can't call yourself a colonized people of British invaders when you immigrated in almost empty land that was under british before you migrated because this doesn't show hong kong people were colonized they just needed to live under british rule and laws.

99.9999% of Hong Kong people are basically migrant to british colony

 

[ManUNITEDglory]

If he is a "Hong Kongese" then he should be able to read Chinese and speak Cantonese.

Speak? almost all of us can

Write? they haven't given us the priveledge

 

[Snomannen]

HK'ers always whine about the good old times under the crown

Nope. 

If he is a "Hong Kongese" then he should be able to read Chinese and speak Cantonese.

Not really.