The Hong Kong situation looks as if it’s calming down significantly. (Special thanks to the consistently sane commentary from Bill Bishop — @niubi — for soothing the shredded nerves and infuriation here at UF.)
A few links (with more to follow):
Martin Jacques gets the story basically right. (UF quibbles concern his seeming — mainstream Jacobin — assumption that the democratization which has so far taken place is a ‘good thing’ and the UK, under Chris Patten’s disastrous period as governor, bears no responsibility for it.)
Steve Wynn comments briefly, and sensibly.
“… it was all avoidable.”
Pure Jacobinism (also here, on Bloomberg TV).
Despite appearances in the Western media mega-bubble, not everyone is a Jacobin:
— Paul Mozur (@paulmozur) October 1, 2014
For an extravagantly harsh statement of sound political philosophy on the topic, there’s Jim.
Under threat of divorce proceedings (“What are you thinking? This is supposed to be your work blog. Our friends could read it.”) it’s necessary to attach some additional comment to this –admittedly utterly horrific — link. Its author is a political genius, whose complete disregard for all conventional human sensitivity can be ‘difficult’ even for his greatest admirers. The point being made (beyond the deeper-level conception of legitimacy), as I take it, is not that it would be anything other than catastrophic for the delightful, civilized, and talented people of Hong Kong to be squashed by tanks, but rather that it would be extremely helpful to the production of a sane political outcome if their most excitable constituencies — and perhaps even more importantly the foreign commentators meddling in their fate — took seriously the possibility that they might be squashed by tanks. In other words, calls for democratic ‘color’ insurrection — of the kind invoked by absurd US-manufactured ‘Occupy’ branding — are implicit incitements to revolutionary martyrdom. Making this fact explicit, and thus manifestly detestable, is the single most important contribution that can be made to a rational resolution of the problem.
ADDED: Western media says Hong Kong protests are “clean and orderly.” Is that racist? (Apparently, there’s some danger of conceiving Hong Kong people as a global ‘model minority’.)
ADDED: “But the protest message, as described by the loudest activists, is problematic, because its central theme of democracy for Hong Kong is all wrong. The degree of political participation in Hong Kong is actually at its highest in history. Before 1997, Hong Kong was a British colony for 155 years, during which it was ruled by 28 governors — all of them directly appointed by London. For Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, to now brand himself as the champion of democracy is hypocrisy of the highest order.”
ADDED: Bargaining with the Dragon
ADDED: The religious dimension. (It’s worth remembering, as a supplement to this specific article, that East Asian Jacobinism is distinctively Christian, wherever it is found.)
ADDED: This ‘rant’ seems entirely calm and reasonable to me (and that’s after it has been rhetorically heated by compression).
Read Anti-Hong Kong Rant That's Going Viral in China http://t.co/Ic8P3Ops25 Interesting analysis, actually. FP framing reliably asinine.
— chinahand (@chinahand) October 7, 2014
ADDED: The road to ruin.