It was the biggest sign of Chinese people actually demonstrating in the streets fighting the opression. Not sure we will see something like that in the next 20 years in China again. It was impressive to see how they were organized and fought for their freedom
Chinese people literally just protested against Zero Covid policy which resulted it being ended.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_COVID-19_protests_in_China
It's crazy that they protested to allow covid, instead of to make Shanghai comply with zero covid and stop incubating and reinfecting the rest of the country.
Taken from another post:
Covid cases from March-April 2022.
Blue line: Shanghai, orange line: Shenzhen
Shanghai: population 24.87M, density ~4000/sqkm, Western-style lockdown
Shenzhen: population 17.56M, density ~7000/sqkm, Zero Covid lockdown
By December 2022, the entire national Zero Covid policy had to be abandoned. Because one city refused to comply with the national policy.
What I find disheartening is that it ultimately didn't work. Or am I wrong?
That’s not entirely true. Protests like these, at the very least, demonstrate class awareness to towards those in power. “Look what we can do”
Never forget that true power lies with the people. Always.
That really only works when the majority don't have power. The Hong Kong protests failed because it was a minority trying to take power they never had, against the wishes of the majority.
Also international news agencies spilling the beans on the fact the leaders of the group were in constant communication with us agencies.
It didn't do anything from what I recall.
I believe it was quickly dissolved after they found that the leadership was in direct communication with USA agents.
Plus I recall there was general dissatisfaction from civilians who found the protestors to be a nuisance.
There is no opinion here, just what recall from the event history.
My understanding was that there was some push back and political/police violence but the Chinese state largely let it play out and then within a month or two made mass arrests of the organizers.
This was a broadly supported movement, impressive in its size and unity.
The strategy Xi used was to not over emphasize the level of public support through direct confrontation - but to wipe out all resistance when the “controlled” energy of the crowd has somewhat dissipated.
Lesson for the current environment in the US: have a long term strategy tied to your goals, put very high degrees of pressure on specific state actors / functions that they cannot ignore or wait out
You are correct, it didn't work.
HK was economically dependent on China already, so their last struggle occurred too late, under the implied threat of the Chinese army moving in. The city government found ways to bring in Chinese police (or interior ministry troops) to overcome and outlast the protests.
I've read an article where one of the protestors said that these yellow hardhats aren't actually so good, they break after one good hit. Better go with something more sturdy.
Alsoy the umbrella serves another function. The more moderate protestors can use it to block vision while the radicals change to be ready when the police comes.
Those HK protests were really sophisticated.
Also don't forget proper encrypted messaging.
For for falling.
The laser pen part makes me uneasy, on one hand its maximum damage for minnimum percieved violence, on the other hand you could cause permament blindness which is a hell of a thing to inflict on anyone regardless of circumstances. Its genius but also pretty brutal.
If one uses a disco laser or laser pointer in the visible wavelength range, it's hard to inflict permanent blindness with it. During the time it would take to inflict thermal damage to the retina, reflexes kick in and the person looking into a laser will close their eye and turn their head.
Occurrences of permanent blindness are rare. This study, even if a bit old (2015) introduces the topic with helpful case reports, for example:
Two young soldiers (Cases 1 and 2) aged 27 and 28 years respectively, serving in the Oman army, projected penlight like devices emanating bright blue-green light into each others eyes (left eye for Case number 1 and right eye for Case number 2) for about 5–10 s. They competed with each other to determine who could bear the light longer while celebrating the success of a local football game.
Basically, they did the utmost stupidity: forcing oneself to stare into a laser at close range. They paid a price and damaged their vision, but didn't go blind from it.
Of course, it's a different story with cutting and engraving lasers, and lasers outside the visible wavelengths - you can stare into those without any reflexes helping avoid damage. The same article mentions another source, reporting about a guy (also military) who looked into a high-power range finder and perforated his fovea (the area where high-resolution vision occurs). It was most likely an infrared laser.
So, be careful but disco lasers won't strike a person blind.
While there's nothing dangerously inaccurate here, these HK protester situation isn't applicable outside of HK, US cops don't use kiddy gloves like the HK police did. See 2020.
To my knowledge, a US police department was sieged and damaged with fire (somewhat short of getting burnt down) during the rioting that occured after killing George Floyd. The officers had firearms, but because of a mix of reasons did not start indiscriminately shooting at over a thousand people. Perhaps out of enlightened self-interest.
It is definitely worth noting that HK didn't have firearms in civilian circulation, but on a few occasions, police did use their guns to shoot a protester. I recall an incident of a kid with a swimming board and stick being shot in the chest while fighting against cops.
To narrow down the frame a bit further - the situation in HK involved incredibly large mass protest. At least a quarter of the population was on streets on certain days. Young and militant protesters were just the outer edge - most participants were not militant at all. In such a context, police generally do not want to provoke outrage, because they're in a very deep minority.
Much depends on what protesters really want. Every person ultimately has their own ideas, but in broad categories:
- do protesters hope to intimidate / persuade the government?
- do protesters want to block government action, but lack offensive intent?
- do protesters intend to defeat and overthrow the government?
Different behaviours will follow depending on goals.
a) Intimidate: showing maximum numbers becomes an important goal. To show maximum numbers, a protest has to be peaceful, so retired people and kids can join. A peaceful mass protest may be a pre-stage for a less peaceful action later, if demands are ignored. It serves to bring people together and bring them into contact with each other. No special gear is required, at least from most participants.
Peaceful mass protest can succeed if a government is frightened of numbers and backs down. It typically works in a democracy.
b) Block: in such situations, protesters often construct roadblocks and barricades around points they care about, and crowd around those points, supplying them - while laying siege to opposing bases, preventing movement by constructing barricades, sabotaging vehicles or slashing tires, denying access to communications, surveillance data, fuel, electricity, heat, water or even sewage.
Blocking a space without offensive action may prevail if a large majority of people do that, against a government which is exhausted, demoralized and has low legitimacy. In the former Soviet block, "velvet revolutions" often involved people persuading soldiers to disobey, offering food, beverage and psychological support to ignore orders, and dissuading cops from showing up at work. This won't work if an opponent has lots of ruthless people willing to kill, who cannot be approached for mass discussion and negotiation. Blocking and persuading will work better if the opponent doesn't feel threatened. If you want someone to defect, you don't approach them with a gun, even if you have one as a backup option. You approach them with beer, preferably a whole crate. :)
c) Defeat: now this is something that usually ends badly. Regardless, it's possible for protesters to defeat a government if the military refrains to act. Revolutions where protesters defeated law enforcement and overthrew a government have typically involved scores of people getting shot. It seems almost a rule that protesters will only win if they escalate fast and cut off law enforcement supply lines. It will help them if an another branch of government is ready to step in and replace the offending one (e.g. parliament is ready to dismiss the president, similar scenarios). If they are slow or can't break supply lines, they'll be defeated or the situation will devolve into a civil war.
At least a quarter of the population was on streets on certain days.
That seems unlikely.
In any case, the HK situation was complicated in the way the Chinese government took extreme cautions not to appear brutal, even when protesters murdered several cops and counter-protesters, while protestors took measures to appeal to foreign audiences to further exploit that.
This dynamic doesn't apply outside of Hong Kong, I can't carry around a sign in chinese in hope that the US fears looking bad to China.
The Chilean protests around that time are much more applicable because the videos coming out weren't designed to appeal to western audiences so they tend to showcase more effective tactics than "bring a $100+ dollar leafblower or have 10 people choreograph a cute routine involving traffic cones", such as "bring a large jug of water, people need water, and you can put tear gas in it." and "use rocks to break up and move police out of an area"
Pretty much the same as the get up for protest in the UK and France, and I'd assume much of Europe.
Think the US is the outlier amongst the global north.
