• lil_tank
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    Libs say we’re revising history and proceed to believe absolutely batshit insane takes like this

    • sicaniv
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      masters in international relations taught

      Shitlib is flaunting Credentials of upvoters, not his.

  • Anarcho-Bolshevik
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not only was Hong Kong hardly a “barren island” when the British arrived in the late 1830s, but Hong Kong’s people were far from the “handful of fishermen and pirates” they have often been described as. As historian and former colonial official James Hayes explains, farming was the “principle occupation.” The island had “several villages of some size, as well as hamlets, and a few larger coastal villages which served as market towns for the villages and as home ports for a permanent boat population and visiting craft.”

    Hayes concludes that “long before 1841,” the inhabitants of Hong Kong Island had “settled into the routine of a settled life. Tied to their fields and houses, and to their businesses and daily occupations, they had established institutions of the kind that is usual in Chinese communities, including the shrines and temples that were the object of periodic and special rites through the calendar year.” Hong Kong’s temples alone, argues Hayes, prove that “the island was certainly well‐established in settled communities long before 1841.”

    A Concise History of Hong Kong

    See City on the Edge: Hong Kong under Chinese Rule, chapter 2, for more evidence.

  • SovereignState
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Looking into going back to school, maybe for international relations. I will make absolutely sure not to go to California State University.

    • SovereignState
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      They had to be civilized, ofc. It’s simply the white man’s burden. (/s)

  • WhatWouldKarlDo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s shocking how frequently I hear this nonsense. It’s the same logic that makes people think that the natives of the Americas are better off now after having been colonised.

    Yet they also have BS like the great replacement theory and movies like Independence Day to show what they would think if someone were to colonise them.

  • INACTIVE ACCOUNT
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    How does one become so delusional that they shit out the most incomprehensible, confusing, braindead, ignorant, close-mouthed, tight-lipped, voiceless, inarticulate, mind-bogglingly stupid take

  • ComradeSalad
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Ah yes, the classic “Who cares we killed 50 million Indians and stole several trillion dollars worth of productive wealth, resources, and manpower while destroying the country’s heritage, culture, and self-sufficiency?! We built 2 trains and 5km of railroad!”

  • Pili
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    He should explain why Britain is still a barren island with a few fishermen then.

  • DamarcusArt
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Fisherman eeking out a meager resistance.”

    Bit of a Freudian slip there, I’d say.