Bombay was not the capital of British India, nor was it even the first major british settlement (the name is from portugese) The capitals of the raj were in calcutta, shimla and dehli. The most english relic in India, IMO is Shimla, which resembles a crumbling english tudor village. On yet another level (we are up to at least 5 or 6) your analogy sucks chav nuts. But I will be sure to look for steak and kidney pie next time I am in Lanzhou, I'm sure it will gravitate up like you say - certainly more so than in a place like Australia. THe only issue I have is that you defile the name of my favorite magazine.
Well, all the schools are teaching British English not American English lol so thats one influence right there.
Next time you go to India, learn some history instead of hanging out in hill stations getting stoned. You're a real idiot, and it's rare that I say that on this board.
yes, who would have thought that the summer political capital of the British Raj and the seat of the Viceroy, the highest ranking representative of the Crown, would have served as a vehicle for British influence - obviously it is bollywood dance numbers. This argumentative tangent is thoroughly r****ded - but then again when you are defending a fatally flawed assumption that is beyond your depth it is to be expected. You obviously bit off more than you could chew with this thread, I suggest you quote Sishir Chang like mad until he responds, because when he embarrases you at least he is nice about it, unlike yours truly
You're a funny guy. It's clear you're just being a troll and trying to flame me without any knowledge whatsoever. Shimla is a freaking hill station where the British went to escape heat. Bombay was the capital of the British Presidency, the HQ of their empire and where the British East India Company situated it's business. It was the primary port as well. Just because the viceroy ran away to the mountains every summer - forget it. You are such an arrogant liberal who thinks you understand the world but actually you're the fool people in most countries laugh at. One of those guys who thinks they are really cultured but actually are clueless.
you know, a nicer way of saying that would have been to compare New York City or L.A. to Washington D.C.
you obviously didn't get to the part of wikipedia that talks about the Raj. Hide you head in pestilent monkey shame, for Hanuman himself is excreting in hilarity.
You call someone a troll? That's rich. You pick a position to argue based on what floats your boat that day, or that week. Sam has a history, a consistant one, in regards to discussing China and her culture and policies. You, on the other hand, have a history, self avowed, of picking a side of an issue "just because I like to stir up discussion, not because of how I actually feel about it." Whatever. This must be your flavor of the week. D&D. Replicant Democrat.
i'm not sure if you are chinese or ever been to china before. but there is a strong nationalistic movement in china that the government is trying to calm down. a lot people are very anti-western influences. and look down on people who are sell outs to western cultures, and it's not only among old folks. it's among younger generation who are more aware of international scene and pride of their heritage. so really, i doubt hong kong is much of an influence right now or in the future. and i'm sure you are talking about hong kong in the sense of urban/educated population. if you find commoners or country side folks, they are very much like the mainlanders, not much different from ordinary real chinese. and look at me now, i've lived in US for almost half of my life, i'm still chinese in and out even though most people think i was born here. sure, i've had some cheese up here in wisconsin, but who said chinese people eat cheese are influenced by americans?
I've been away from the D & D for a few days but this thread has really taken a strange turn.. Are y'all arguing how much British influence is in the PRC based upon Hong Kong and comparing that with India?
people are definetely influenced by Hong Kong pop culture. Every single show on Hunan channel sounds and looks like a Hong Kong show. I agree with new Yorker, there's definetely an influence on mainland culture by Hong Kong (at least amongst those who arent poor)
The near complete lack of freedom to demonstrate for and against political issues under a prosperous authoritarian regime? Beats me. D&D. Replicant Democrat.
really? I had no idea serisouly. I thought Singapore was much more free than that. Someone needs to give me a more detailed summary plz. I think Sishir or someone else here knows much more about Singapore than I do. if they could share their views, it would be appreciated. For my part, I thought it was a representative democracy.
Pretty much every country is anti-western. But what makes them anti-western is other's adoptation of westernism - in fact, you have to have a strong adopting of it in order to have a reaction against it. Having pride in your culture doesn't mean you don't adopt things from other culture. China has been influenced by other nations for 1000's of years, just as most other countries. Ideas spread, are integrated, and adopted, to the point often that generations later no one really considers it foreign anymore. I don't understand why this is offenseive to people. And yes, I'm talking about the Urban population. Cities are always the first to pick up on trends. As someone pointed out earlier - look at L.A. and NYC. You don't see people in alabama eating with Chop Sticks....I'm not sure if you'll see many good ole boys even at a chinese restaurant. Go to a nyc chinatown resturant, and nearly half the patrons are not chinese, and they aren't using a nice of fork either.
I've had very little chance to skim this thread from the last time I posted here but since I've lived in Singapore and have family in both Singapore and Hong Kong I feel the need to weigh in. There is a lot of British influence in Hong Kong but its not expressed evenly and in regards to economics and politics probably not very much since the Brits were smart enough to not take a heavy hand economimcally and let Hong Kong flourish. If the argument is about people in Hong Kong being more inclined towards democracy than the rest of the PRC because of the British I would say that's a tough argument but not totally baseless. The British style of education with its emphasis on English exposed people in Hong Kong to the wider world and to ideas of western style thought including democracy. OTOH the people who grew up in the PRC until recently got very little exposure to outside thought. Having a high degree of economic freedom has also probably fostered a desire for political freedom too. Even though the Brits allowed a lot of economic freedom I wouldn't put the economic attitudes as due to British thought since Hong Kong has often had more economic freedom and a dedication to capitalism than the UK itself. As for political organization keep in mind that not until the last years of British rule did Hong Kong get some form of democratic government due mostly to the last colonial governor Chris Patten in the 1990's. Many suspect this was a deliberate move designed to cause problems for the PRC than as a recognition of the ability of the people of Hong Kong to govern themselves. Since the handover the government of the SAR (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region) has primarily been shaped by the PRC with Beijing picking leaders and while there still is an elected council their power has been curtailed. Culturally Hong Kong has become much more like Beijing or Shanghai. When I was there in 1997 just before the handover Mandarin still wasn't widely spoken but by the time I was there in 2005 it was. I would say rather than Hong Kong influencing the rest of the PRC the rest of the PRC has had a much greater influence on Hong Kong. I would say Singapore was more influenced by the British and retains that influence much more than Hong Kong. Even while Singapore has undertaken programs to make themselves more Chinese it still is a multi-ethnic society and has to acknowledge that by still using English a lot and retaining the British style education system. The government of Singapore is also organized along British lines and while Singapore loves foreign investment internal economy has a lot of state involvement possibly influenced by British socialist movements while their infrastructure and social service models are based upon Western European models.
Singapore outwardly appears very free, especially to foreigners who's main experience is Orchard Road, the main shopping drag, but politically Singapore has far less freedoms than Hong Kong in the 1990's and possibly even Hong Kong now. Singapore is a democracy and there are elections but the machinery of government is so heavily dominated by the PAP, Lee Kuan Yew's Party, its virtually impossible for any other party to get anything more than one or two token seats. On top of that the PAP and the Lee family aren't shy about using things like the judiciary and state institutions to their benefit and have hounded opposition members through lawsuits, charges of sedition and sexual deviancy. While officially independent the Singapore judiciary is willing to go along with it. The omnipresence of the PAP permeates much of Singapore society so that PAP members can further hound opposition parties or critics of the government through work and social interactions. I would say a good analogy of it is to Chicago being run by Democractic Party bosses. That said the PAP though isn't corrupt in terms of money and you can't buy influence in them. Their view has been that everything they have done is necessary to ensure Singapore's material success. Lee Kuan Yew, or Uncle Harry as he likes to be called, has also argued about "Asian Values" when criticized by Westerners, which he states as being a Confucian in nature and valuing the society over the individual. Lee Kuan Yew's philosophy though has also been influenced by European socialists movements in creating a paternalistic state. As for the people of Singapore the vast majority of them are willing to go along with this. Singaporeans are notoriously shallow and most of the people my age and younger have very little interests in politics but are more interested in making money and shopping. I've talked to a few internal critics of Singapore and even they concede that the PAP has delivered for the most part.
