本帖最后由 Pyree 于 2013-5-2 17:16 编辑
syqwin 发表于 2013-5-2 14:19 ![]()
one remarkable feature of UK ideology is its evolution.
hundreds of years ago, the royal famil ...
"hundreds of years ago, the royal family stands for capitalism, colonialism, jingoism, racialism...all the ugly things, you name them.
but after hundreds of years, the ugly and savage UK ideology is disappeared. It becomes a civilized and progressive ideology."
I would attribute that change to the progress of the society and its people. USA and France, without a royal family also managed to change their society to today's standard. It is ultimately the people that influence the society and not the royal family, even in UK (it is a constitutional monachy where the royal family has little to no influence, remember?). Don't attribute the great progress made by the people to the royal family. You are the people, a part of the society and you contribute to the society and social change for the better as well. Don't be so humble and let Elizabeth and her relatives take all the credit. That credit goes to the people, that means you too!
"a report from southern china morning post shows that 'many' (I won't mention the miserable number) HK citizens want hk to be a british overseas territory.
why? do they want to abandon their motherland and become slaves of a foreign monarch? of course not. as I said before, monarch only bears the title, behind the crown, it is a world of freedom, democracy, human rights...which ‘many’ long to share. besides, it just shows the governance failure of "dynasty of heaven" in hk."
I certain don't feel that way. There is noting more shameful than being colonized. I don't understand why Chinese in HK are willing to be BNO. It is true HK is not as democratic as it used to be because of the influence from CCP. But HK was not a true democracy to start with. The governor of colonial HK was appointed by Elizabeth. People are nostalgic about the better colonial time and prefer HK under GB than HK under CCP because in comparison, HK under GB is better than HK under CCP. But don't forget, there is an alternative. If mainland China becomes a democratic republic, then HK will have it's own elected representative in Beijing as well as the right to vote for the president of China, their very own Chinese president. I'd rather see China become a democratic republic and Hong Kong be a part of it. That would be the ultimate democratic goal that Chinese should aim for. "dynasty of heaven" is a failure not just in HK but in mainland China and at the international stage. You don't need to remind me of that. Their single party state government, open corruption, poor quality control is just failure after failure. CCP can't fix what they have on their plate and now they are trying to fix things in HK, that idea is laughable.
Like I said before, I'd rather see us Chinese starting our own democratic republic. People can be and should be responsible for their own world of freedom, democracy, human rights, etc. There is no need for the royal family to support it (e.g. France and USA). The royal family used to oppress the people. The royal family now stands for a world of freedom, democracy, human rights because they know the true power rests on the people. The people is something they can't oppose. If they oppose the people, they will be goner a long time ago. So they choose what can save their asses and "give" democracy back to the people. And look! People still thinks they are great and special, the royal family can demand respect and have loads of money, even when they serves no real purpose in today's society. A foregin monachy gave the people of HK something better than what they have now should not be a reason for people to stop. We Chinese can have a democratic republic and we tried in 1989. I have no doubt there will be another and successful one in the future.
"H.M the queen gives the rights to her people, the people can even use those rights to rebel the queen. but in the so called "dynasty of heaven", people don't have a monarch, and people don't have rights neither. H.M the queen bears the title only, 'the people's republic' only bears the title either."
The royal family "gave" democracy to the people, that is undeniable. But if her ancestor didn't they will end up like the French royal family. So it is not a difficult choice. The people were screaming, "Give me freedom or I give you death!". Now that people have their freedom, the people are kind enough and they live up to their end of the bargin. That's people in UK and their choice. I don't want that, I want a republic as I see absalutly no point on having a royal faimly. I am entitled to have my own opinion in a democracy. I am aware that the United Kingdom is not a dictatorship ruled by the king, and I am aware of PRC is not a republic of the people. What I am talking and I want you to be aware of is that I am talking about a true republic like that of USA and France. They were and are great nationals and without a monarchy. That just shows how irrelevent a monarchy is in today's world. The monarchy serves no real purpose. You even said they are in names only. Yet, they require our respect (I am not going to give them any) and they still keep the wealth they took from the people. The monarchy is as great as how much the people give credit to them, they are nothing without the people. The people is what makes a country great, so why not just have the people?
This is starting to sound like 孫中山 vs. 梁啟超.
|
楼主: syqwin
[复制链接]
楼主
