
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
I'm referring to the example that you cited as an example of Britain's wrongdoing. Subsequent arguing to put Britain in the wrong regarding that example was symptomatic of the whole blame Britain tendency, which is to start with the conclusion of blaming Britain, then working backwards to find the argument, ignoring all evidence that might argue against it, even if the evidence might originate from more reliable sources than the philosophical arguments of someone who lives far away from the area being discussed. The worst part of that argument was the dismissal of primary sources from people on the spot, which were deemed insignificant against a theoretical argument that would take years to play out if it does at all. There are lots of arguments against the British in Hong Kong, using primary sources and on location. But the argument in this thread missed all of them completely, as it never had any interest in examining the subject matter, but only in finding an philosophical argument using scant sources that would result in the desired conclusion of finding the British in the wrong.
Here's an argument against the British in Hong Kong: the British colonials were racist and regarded the natives as inferiors. If you knew anything about that colony, you'd be able to make this argument. And if you knew anything more, you'd know there are further colours to that argument, and the British don't come out the worst from an examination of this argument.
Bookmarks