I offer an alternative translation below since I find the BBC's translation overly literal and cherry-picked for a punchy headline, although there are certainly overtones of violence in the original idiom chosen. I've used the wheel to emphasize that the idiom ultimately is a brutal one, but not necessarily a literal one.
For anyone who tries to mess around with separatism in any part of China, the only possible outcome is that they are broken upon the wheel. Any external forces which support the fracturing of China can only be seen by the Chinese people as delusional.
I am really disappointed in BBC's reporting here. They chose to interpret a idiom in a literal way just to make a maximally controversial headline.
Even in wuxia novels where I see this phrase used the most, the phrase is never used literally (And in those fictional universes turning people into powder is actually possible). If you choose to translate chinese literally you can make anyone sound insane.
Focus on the intent. He is very much saying he will destroy those people. But not necessarily by crushing bones.
In Equador pacific protesters are being repressed by the government, protesters are being shoot by snipers and nobody cares. Geopolitical interests are a very crazy thing.
I think geopplitical interests in this circumstance may be rational if a bit cold. It is like someone paralyzed by a broken spine vs by a virus essentially - both are bad of course but the later has real fear of "contagation" to spark worry. Ecuador while messed up is "contained" and would fail to take even a neighboring territory without any third party intervention. The most impact everyone else could feel is a refugee surge.
Meanwhile China is growing in power and influence while not softening in authoritarianism but even going backwards with Xi. The threat that something like that may spread elsewhere worries which may be why the NBA and Activision/Blizzard are facing a fiercer backlash than Dr. Strange and the Red Dawn remake for their caving - they effectively extended their reach. While boots on the ground domestically wouldn't be plausible without some "magic" antinuclear technology or incredibly good missle defense and detection bringing an end to Pax Atomica getting fired and blacklisted over acknowledging Tiananmen Square is potentially plausible with global markets and clout. That level of "having a blacklisted employee or contractor bars the company from selling to China" wouldn't technically violate treaties. Jurisdiction may keep one safe but barring financial transactions would be within the powers of a nation and before that level of tracking would be logistically impossible.
Ecuador has been eye-opening for me from a personalized-news perspective. I spent a few months in Ecuador working on a project with an NGO so I have many friends in Quito and a handful in Guayaquil. From the moment the IMF-related austerity measures were announced it was all over my newsfeed and I've been getting "recommend" alerts about the situation from Apple News and Reddit.
I assumed it was a major international story. A few days after the protests started I mentioned them in conversation to a friend at Reuters who only had a vague idea of the situation. I couldn't believe it. He's an international news junkie. Looking at my phone, the protests are (were? hopefully) a major story but looking at his you wouldn't even really know it was happening.
I agree. Although this is indeed a sad state of affairs, there is a lot injustice going on the world right now that I feel are not getting the attention they deserve. I feel these news have been partly fueled by the Western propaganda machine, the counterpart of the troll factories employed by Russia etc. And I'm not the one who would often say that, it's just it seems a little bit out of proportion in the context of things. Like US is trying to pressure China for their own benefit. I don't know, I'm speculating of course but this is what it seems to me as a reasonably neutral observer.
And although I'm pro-democracy and think the repression of HK citizens is wrong, I can understand the Chinese government's point of view and their cultural reasoning. I see China as the spiritual successor to Soviet Union which did the right choices for its continuation. And when Soviet Union fell apart it wasn't really a triumph of democracy that followed. Sure other Soviet Union states have been more successful but Russia itself seems to be chronically vulnerable to mafia-type people who will strong-arm themselves into power. Better than Soviet Union? I guess, but Chinese government doesn't seem interested in wanting to try out if democracy would work.
I'm sure the government officials are also more concerned with their own selfish needs than just what would be the best for people. So far the only reason why I would see authoritarian government being good, is that it can act more powerfully than democratically elected government without having to fear their decisions weakening their re-election chances. Yet their privilege in being power only rests on their ability to force people to obey their orders - be it fear, bribery or mass-media brainwash. I don't think that kind of environment is sustainable and is definitely not an equilibrium state for humans to exist in. If something requires you to constantly keep distorting reality in order to keep it going, it can't be a long-term solution. And this is without taking in consideration the humanitarian problems, prevalence of corruption and the absence of critical thought.
In Ecuador, you have internal strife between two political groups and the main apparent goal of the protesters is to get the reinstatement of fuel subsidies. It's a tragic situation, but from a media point of view its understandably not nearly so compelling a story.
A couple things, I didn't really see a huge uptick about HK until China started "censoring" western companies with employees having to publicly backpedal. Second, money talks and there is a lot more at stake with western companies in China and HK then in Ecuador.
Here's a sobering fact: HK's GDP was about 14% of China's GDP in 2000. Now it's about 2.4%. This is mainly due to growth in mainland China.
HK is no longer China's golden goose, which is probably why China started this mess to begin with. From their viewpoint, HK's British hybrid law system is no longer worth putting up with. There's a very realistic possibility that China is going to crush resistance in HK by any means necessary. Keeping HK's economy and productivity intact probably aren't viewed to be important, but avoiding sanctions that would impact the entire country likely is.
This really is a conflict in which the threat of economic sanctions might actually save lives, provided they're believable.
GDP != Value. HK continues to be the jurisdiction of choice for mainland companies wishing to do business with the west and vice versa because the rule of law increases people's confidence in the validity of any contracts signed.
The HK property and stock market is also where a huge amount of of Chinese money is parked.
Neither of these contribute to GDP but provide a lot of value to the mainland.
You're not entirely wrong, but I do think it's a gigantic oversimplification to only look at the value of Hong Kong in terms of percentage of GDP. While I do agree that a crackdown is likely, I also think the consequences to China's economy, both from direct factors but also from indirect factors that are hard to predict, may be significant in doing so.
At the end of the day, it's my opinion that this struggle is from the CCP side of things not a rational one. They are willing to sacrifice "rational" values for the sake of things like honor and saving face, and I think (and to some extent, hope) that there is a risk that type of decision making will cause a downward spiral for the regime.
I can't remember who made this point, but there's a historical anecdote about how "totalitarian regimes are suicidal". Sooner or later the fascist cocktail that has fueled economic growth explodes into unbearable oppression, unsustainable expansion, economically questionable decisions, or all of the above. I've heard the point many times that just like the Roman Empire was always just "one missed grain shipment away from a revolution", the only thing really standing between the CCP and a popular revolt is the downturn of the economy. The only reason people are tolerating the suffocating oppression of the state is because of tangible rewards.
There's a very realistic possibility that China is going to crush resistance in HK by any means necessary.
I keep waiting for the shoe to drop.
China, by her own standards, has been very soft on the protests so far. China is much more concerned with its global image than back during the Tiananmen Square protests.
But if anyone should think this won’t end similarly, they’d be fooling themselves.
I’d put lower odds on a sudden violent crack down than on a slow, methodical process of arresting leaders and slowly ratcheting up the pressure on protestors.
As sad as it might seem, the CCP will come out on top in the end.
It's not like this is a recent change in policy as Hong Kong has become more insignificant in the scheme of things. China has been systemically fiddling with HK since 1997, despite lodged international agreement and "one country, two systems". The extradition was merely the last of many straws.
One of the earliest protests I remember was around 2,000 (Edit: it was actually 2003) and tied in with the universal suffrage electing the Chief Executive that was in the handover agreement, written into Basic Law, and remains an issue for today's protests. It's one of the protest's "five points".
Edit: There was an earlier demo in 2,002 over civil rights stemming from the subversion law, which spawned the yearly marches.
It now seems like a symbolic nationalist issue. But isn't your argument that HK is a smaller fraction of China's economy an argument to NOT crush the dissent in HK?
If China decides to "crush" resistance in HK by any means necessary, it would be the Chinese economy that took the blow of international sanctions and boycotts?
Hong Kong does not pay taxes to mainland China, and it’s GDP isn’t included in China’s GDP calculation.
What I find interesting is that Macau is in the same position as Hong Kong, former colony, 1 country 2 systems, but it’s GDP per capita is double that of HK, and there have been no protests in Macau.
What does the endgame look like here? Does anyone have a realistic prediction?
I root for these people because I can just begin to imagine my city being taken over by a country that would just disappear me if I become inconvenient. But does it really have to come to a Braveheart style conclusion?
The Chinese government effectively has infinite resources and unlimited time. They will proceed with slow divide and conquer, jailing people one by one until either the protestors give up or turn violent. If the protestors can be provoked to violence then the mainland government can respond in kind. China either wins slowly or quickly. There's no scenario where they don't win.
Unlikely, as such an ending would probably have catastrophic consequences for Chinese trade and international relations.
Tiananmen Square set Chinese diplomatic relations back well over a decade, and with their economy showing signs of a possible slowdown, they’re particularly conscious of the consequences that any militaristic response would have.
I predict that more likely the protests will subside over time without military intervention from the mainland.
In Macau, another Chinese city under One Country Two Systems, people are generally very happy with the present political arrangement. Macau has an advanced economy with one of the highest GDP per capita in the world today. It is also a free and democratic society.
Both economically and politically, China prefers HK to be like Macau at a larger scale (HK has over 10x population). The current situation seems to be necessary pains of growing up.
Because of facial identification and other kinds of vigilance implemented these protesters probably can’t afford to go back to their daily lives therefore I think they will just keep fighting.
At the end of the day China “owns” HK according to the rest of the world, so I see little hope of anything positive happening, especially since Nationalism is on the rise in the West. People like Trump are all to happy to engage in meaningless trade wars, but have little political ideology to espouse. What serious ally does HK have?
1989 Tienanmen protests were ignited by the death of pro-reform general secretary Hu Yaobang and the perceived notion that the party had mistreated him.
They were the end of the movement that started with 1986 Chinese student demonstrations demanding academic freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of the press that he associated with the West. General secretary Hu Yaobang was removed because he did not try to crush these demonstrations and demands.
The 1989 demonstrations demanded continued economic reform and liberalization, but he demands escalated. Students wanted guaranteed constitutional freedoms, fight corruption, adopt a press law, and allow the establishment of privately run newspapers (as in liberal democracy)
Inspired by Fang and other 'people-power' movements around the world, in December 1986, student demonstrators staged protests against the slow pace of reform. The issues were wide-ranging, and included demands for economic liberalization, democracy, and rule of law.
[..]
As its size grew, the gathering gradually evolved into a protest, as students began to draft a list of pleas and suggestions (Seven Demands) for the government:
1. Affirm Hu Yaobang's views on democracy and freedom as correct.
2. Admit that the campaigns against spiritual pollution and bourgeois liberalization had been wrong.
3. Publish information on the income of state leaders and their family members.
4. Allow privately run newspapers and stop press censorship.
5. Increase funding for education and raise intellectuals' pay.
6. End restrictions on demonstrations in Beijing.
7. Provide objective coverage of students in official media.
> At this grim moment, what we need most is to remain calm and united in a single purpose. We need a powerful cementing force to strengthen our resolve: That is the Goddess of Democracy. Democracy...You are the symbol of every student in the Square, of the hearts of millions of people. ...Today, here in the People’s Square, the people’s Goddess stands tall and announces to the whole world: A consciousness of democracy has awakened among the Chinese people! The new era has begun! ...The statue of the Goddess of Democracy is made of plaster, and of course cannot stand here forever. But as the symbol of the people’s hearts, she is divine and inviolate. Let those who would sully her beware: the people will not permit this! ...On the day when real democracy and freedom come to China, we must erect another Goddess of Democracy here in the Square, monumental, towering, and permanent. We have strong faith that that day will come at last. We have still another hope: Chinese people, arise! Erect the statue of the Goddess of Democracy in your millions of hearts! Long live the people! Long live freedom! Long live democracy!
democracy noun
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
"capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world"
Similar:
representative government
elective government
constitutional government
popular government
self-government
government by the people
autonomy
republic
commonwealth
Opposite:
tyranny
dictatorship
a state governed by a democracy.
plural noun: democracies
"a multiparty democracy"
control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
"the intended extension of industrial democracy"
Not opposed to the ideals expressed at Tiananmen if they were attempting to regain control from a narrowing elite.
[+] [-] dwohnitmok|6 years ago|reply
The original is, as pointed out elsewhere, 任何人企图在中国任何地区搞分裂，结果只能是粉身碎骨；任何支持分裂中国的外部势力只能被中国人民视为痴心妄想. http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2019-10/13/c_1125099224.ht...
I offer an alternative translation below since I find the BBC's translation overly literal and cherry-picked for a punchy headline, although there are certainly overtones of violence in the original idiom chosen. I've used the wheel to emphasize that the idiom ultimately is a brutal one, but not necessarily a literal one.
For anyone who tries to mess around with separatism in any part of China, the only possible outcome is that they are broken upon the wheel. Any external forces which support the fracturing of China can only be seen by the Chinese people as delusional.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lgvln|6 years ago|reply
Funny how it reminds me exactly of the protesters crushed by the tanks at the Tiananmian Incident.
[+] [-] throwaway_bad|6 years ago|reply
Even in wuxia novels where I see this phrase used the most, the phrase is never used literally (And in those fictional universes turning people into powder is actually possible). If you choose to translate chinese literally you can make anyone sound insane.
Focus on the intent. He is very much saying he will destroy those people. But not necessarily by crushing bones.
[+] [-] lebenlechzer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thiagoharry|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nasrudith|6 years ago|reply
Meanwhile China is growing in power and influence while not softening in authoritarianism but even going backwards with Xi. The threat that something like that may spread elsewhere worries which may be why the NBA and Activision/Blizzard are facing a fiercer backlash than Dr. Strange and the Red Dawn remake for their caving - they effectively extended their reach. While boots on the ground domestically wouldn't be plausible without some "magic" antinuclear technology or incredibly good missle defense and detection bringing an end to Pax Atomica getting fired and blacklisted over acknowledging Tiananmen Square is potentially plausible with global markets and clout. That level of "having a blacklisted employee or contractor bars the company from selling to China" wouldn't technically violate treaties. Jurisdiction may keep one safe but barring financial transactions would be within the powers of a nation and before that level of tracking would be logistically impossible.
[+] [-] elliekelly|6 years ago|reply
Ecuador has been eye-opening for me from a personalized-news perspective. I spent a few months in Ecuador working on a project with an NGO so I have many friends in Quito and a handful in Guayaquil. From the moment the IMF-related austerity measures were announced it was all over my newsfeed and I've been getting "recommend" alerts about the situation from Apple News and Reddit.
I assumed it was a major international story. A few days after the protests started I mentioned them in conversation to a friend at Reuters who only had a vague idea of the situation. I couldn't believe it. He's an international news junkie. Looking at my phone, the protests are (were? hopefully) a major story but looking at his you wouldn't even really know it was happening.
[+] [-] tekkk|6 years ago|reply
And although I'm pro-democracy and think the repression of HK citizens is wrong, I can understand the Chinese government's point of view and their cultural reasoning. I see China as the spiritual successor to Soviet Union which did the right choices for its continuation. And when Soviet Union fell apart it wasn't really a triumph of democracy that followed. Sure other Soviet Union states have been more successful but Russia itself seems to be chronically vulnerable to mafia-type people who will strong-arm themselves into power. Better than Soviet Union? I guess, but Chinese government doesn't seem interested in wanting to try out if democracy would work.
I'm sure the government officials are also more concerned with their own selfish needs than just what would be the best for people. So far the only reason why I would see authoritarian government being good, is that it can act more powerfully than democratically elected government without having to fear their decisions weakening their re-election chances. Yet their privilege in being power only rests on their ability to force people to obey their orders - be it fear, bribery or mass-media brainwash. I don't think that kind of environment is sustainable and is definitely not an equilibrium state for humans to exist in. If something requires you to constantly keep distorting reality in order to keep it going, it can't be a long-term solution. And this is without taking in consideration the humanitarian problems, prevalence of corruption and the absence of critical thought.
[+] [-] Angostura|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j8014|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] threeseed|6 years ago|reply
Because it's not just about Hong Kong protestors but about how China deals with thoughts and opinions that aren't of the ruling government.
[+] [-] beloch|6 years ago|reply
HK is no longer China's golden goose, which is probably why China started this mess to begin with. From their viewpoint, HK's British hybrid law system is no longer worth putting up with. There's a very realistic possibility that China is going to crush resistance in HK by any means necessary. Keeping HK's economy and productivity intact probably aren't viewed to be important, but avoiding sanctions that would impact the entire country likely is.
This really is a conflict in which the threat of economic sanctions might actually save lives, provided they're believable.
[+] [-] throwaway1997|6 years ago|reply
The HK property and stock market is also where a huge amount of of Chinese money is parked.
Neither of these contribute to GDP but provide a lot of value to the mainland.
[+] [-] hnarn|6 years ago|reply
At the end of the day, it's my opinion that this struggle is from the CCP side of things not a rational one. They are willing to sacrifice "rational" values for the sake of things like honor and saving face, and I think (and to some extent, hope) that there is a risk that type of decision making will cause a downward spiral for the regime.
I can't remember who made this point, but there's a historical anecdote about how "totalitarian regimes are suicidal". Sooner or later the fascist cocktail that has fueled economic growth explodes into unbearable oppression, unsustainable expansion, economically questionable decisions, or all of the above. I've heard the point many times that just like the Roman Empire was always just "one missed grain shipment away from a revolution", the only thing really standing between the CCP and a popular revolt is the downturn of the economy. The only reason people are tolerating the suffocating oppression of the state is because of tangible rewards.
[+] [-] refurb|6 years ago|reply
I keep waiting for the shoe to drop.
China, by her own standards, has been very soft on the protests so far. China is much more concerned with its global image than back during the Tiananmen Square protests.
But if anyone should think this won’t end similarly, they’d be fooling themselves.
I’d put lower odds on a sudden violent crack down than on a slow, methodical process of arresting leaders and slowly ratcheting up the pressure on protestors.
As sad as it might seem, the CCP will come out on top in the end.
[+] [-] NeedMoreTea|6 years ago|reply
One of the earliest protests I remember was around 2,000 (Edit: it was actually 2003) and tied in with the universal suffrage electing the Chief Executive that was in the handover agreement, written into Basic Law, and remains an issue for today's protests. It's one of the protest's "five points".
Edit: There was an earlier demo in 2,002 over civil rights stemming from the subversion law, which spawned the yearly marches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_1_July_marches
[+] [-] alkonaut|6 years ago|reply
If China decides to "crush" resistance in HK by any means necessary, it would be the Chinese economy that took the blow of international sanctions and boycotts?
[+] [-] ohnidoertous|6 years ago|reply
What I find interesting is that Macau is in the same position as Hong Kong, former colony, 1 country 2 systems, but it’s GDP per capita is double that of HK, and there have been no protests in Macau.
[+] [-] flyinglizard|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pigo|6 years ago|reply
I root for these people because I can just begin to imagine my city being taken over by a country that would just disappear me if I become inconvenient. But does it really have to come to a Braveheart style conclusion?
[+] [-] keanzu|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] save_ferris|6 years ago|reply
Tiananmen Square set Chinese diplomatic relations back well over a decade, and with their economy showing signs of a possible slowdown, they’re particularly conscious of the consequences that any militaristic response would have.
[+] [-] flag23147|6 years ago|reply
In Macau, another Chinese city under One Country Two Systems, people are generally very happy with the present political arrangement. Macau has an advanced economy with one of the highest GDP per capita in the world today. It is also a free and democratic society.
Both economically and politically, China prefers HK to be like Macau at a larger scale (HK has over 10x population). The current situation seems to be necessary pains of growing up.
[+] [-] tus88|6 years ago|reply
Which are what exactly?
[+] [-] Merrill|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielneri|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hkmaxpro|6 years ago|reply
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-13/hong-kong-protests-br...
Vox: 9 questions about the Hong Kong protests you were too embarrassed to ask
https://www.vox.com/world/2019/8/22/20804294/hong-kong-prote...
These two articles were written in late Aug/mid Sep and do not contain the most recent developments.
[+] [-] ohnidoertous|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] duaoebg|6 years ago|reply
I can't help but wonder how things would be different if the Hong Kong population was armed like Americans.
[+] [-] ulzeraj|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hacknat|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] egdod|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thatguyagain|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polotics|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chobeat|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] INGELRII|6 years ago|reply
They were the end of the movement that started with 1986 Chinese student demonstrations demanding academic freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of the press that he associated with the West. General secretary Hu Yaobang was removed because he did not try to crush these demonstrations and demands.
The 1989 demonstrations demanded continued economic reform and liberalization, but he demands escalated. Students wanted guaranteed constitutional freedoms, fight corruption, adopt a press law, and allow the establishment of privately run newspapers (as in liberal democracy)
[+] [-] PavlovsCat|6 years ago|reply
Inspired by Fang and other 'people-power' movements around the world, in December 1986, student demonstrators staged protests against the slow pace of reform. The issues were wide-ranging, and included demands for economic liberalization, democracy, and rule of law.
[..]
As its size grew, the gathering gradually evolved into a protest, as students began to draft a list of pleas and suggestions (Seven Demands) for the government:
1. Affirm Hu Yaobang's views on democracy and freedom as correct.
2. Admit that the campaigns against spiritual pollution and bourgeois liberalization had been wrong.
3. Publish information on the income of state leaders and their family members.
4. Allow privately run newspapers and stop press censorship.
5. Increase funding for education and raise intellectuals' pay.
6. End restrictions on demonstrations in Beijing.
7. Provide objective coverage of students in official media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddess_of_Democracy
> At this grim moment, what we need most is to remain calm and united in a single purpose. We need a powerful cementing force to strengthen our resolve: That is the Goddess of Democracy. Democracy...You are the symbol of every student in the Square, of the hearts of millions of people. ...Today, here in the People’s Square, the people’s Goddess stands tall and announces to the whole world: A consciousness of democracy has awakened among the Chinese people! The new era has begun! ...The statue of the Goddess of Democracy is made of plaster, and of course cannot stand here forever. But as the symbol of the people’s hearts, she is divine and inviolate. Let those who would sully her beware: the people will not permit this! ...On the day when real democracy and freedom come to China, we must erect another Goddess of Democracy here in the Square, monumental, towering, and permanent. We have strong faith that that day will come at last. We have still another hope: Chinese people, arise! Erect the statue of the Goddess of Democracy in your millions of hearts! Long live the people! Long live freedom! Long live democracy!
[+] [-] dforrestwilson|6 years ago|reply
Not opposed to the ideals expressed at Tiananmen if they were attempting to regain control from a narrowing elite.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/democracy
[+] [-] peter_retief|6 years ago|reply