Always found it weird to see governments paying for PR consultants.
It's like : I give you tax money to do a good job, but you spend it to convince me that you're doing a good job instead of actually delivering getting shit done.
Since it's an executable like that, this would also allow you to put it in /usr/local/bin (or wherever you keep bins) and call it from anywhere in your shell with 'taoup'
Leto is talking to Paul, and he is talking about either a region or a chemical process that is important for the production of film stock. then he sardonically says something like, (paraphrasing):
"Film stock is very important. we have the finest propaganda offices. The people must learn how well I govern them. How would they know if we didn't tell them?"
he means it sarcastically, but propaganda is important to keep useful people on the planet and to win the general populace over. Leto knows he's backed into a corner on Arrakis and he's focusing on what he can.
I also could only find the part i posted originally online, its not one of the more frequent quotes from the book.
I was planning to visit Hong Kong before this began but won't now for the foreseeable future due to the actions of the governments of HK and China. I want to visit China too but the rapid development of their omnipresent surveillance state has me putting those plans off presumably forever, which is a shame as I am fascinated by Chinese history and culture.
I'm currently in Hong Kong (planning to leave in December). Honestly if you want to come as a tourist I can't see you'll face any problems. Just be sensible and you'll be safe.
Unless you don't want to fund the economy of Hong Kong through tourism because you disagree with politics of its government and China. In which case, fair enough, really. I'm avoiding pro-China companies as much as possible myself. Although obviously the necessities of living do get a little in the way of that.
I would say it still worth a visit to see it first hand. Protest and civil disobedience normally occurred during the weekend. r/HongHong even has a link to a Google Calendar on all the events that are going to happen.
You should visit China just to see the scale. 20 cities larger then NYC. Just one example, Tokyo's bullet train station has 4 tracks Shanghai's has 24. Also make sure to visit the country side and see how many people need to be helped out of poverty.
Thanks for your suggestions. I have to admit I enjoy nature over man-made achievements but I would appreciate visiting China's mills of industry in addition to absorbing the local culture and cuisines throughout the nation (food is perhaps most accessible and direct experience of local culture?)
The chinese government showed restraint and maturity in acts (if not in grandstanding) and the HK gov is slowly shifting to serving its people rather than ask them to serve it.
The protesters are now a minority and extreme to the point any win ends up "not enough", I for one am seeing it as a milestone for China's shift toward democracy.
Visit or don't, but HK has a unique history, from its troubled beginning as a british colony to its difficult chinese integration. We prefer to slowly build it compromise by compromise rather than shun any sign of progress in the name of absolutism.
> Visit or don't, but HK has a unique history, from its troubled beginning as a british colony to its difficult chinese integration. We prefer to slowly build it compromise by compromise rather than shun any sign of progress in the name of absolutism.
This statement makes me really curious to understand your point of view: From your perspective, is this what HK people in general (not just the protesters) want? When you say progress, progress for whom, and toward what end? What is the goal of integrating HK into China, or what is the expected benefit for the Chinese people and for Hong Kong people? I am not from China or HK, so I don't really have a great understanding of what people in either place think.
> the government wanted a firm to "address negative perceptions in key markets overseas to maintain confidence in Hong Kong"
It seems like the point of this particular exercise wasn't to convince citizens of anything, but rather to convince people that want to do business in HK that it is still a good idea. This definitely seems premature to the point of being stupid and massively tone-deaf, but does not seem especially ill-intentioned.
There's quite a few crowd funding campaigns by protestors that have raised millions of dollars. They were able to buy full page ads in major international newspapers.
Well, I can understand the need to publicize stuff that might not go unnoticed. But I definitely scratched my head at how the US postal service was doing major, ostentatious sponsorships of cyclists on the Tour de France, and was like, "uh, are people really not aware that the Post Office is a thing?"
Edit: Side note, I remember a slashdot thread from a while back that mentioned the "Word of Mouth Marketing Association", and someone was like, "um, what? Isn't the whole point of word-of-mouth marketing that it's not organized by some committee, top-down?"
You shouldn't need marketing when the "customer" has no other option but to deal with you. If you legitimately don't suck then the customer will figure it out through their experience (because they have to deal with you). Hiring PR firms to gaslight the public is not something a decent government does.
> If you legitimately don't suck then the customer will figure it out through their experience (because they have to deal with you).
This isn't true. Most people in the US, for instance, never have to deal with the justice system. They have no idea whether it sucks or not, and their opinions are largely shaped by both positive and negative PR.
I'm a potential HK customer (it always seemed like an interesting place to visit). My employer is a potential HK customer (HK could be a location for an office). We have many other options than HK.
> According to the brief, published in the PR industry paper The Holmes Report, the government wanted a firm to "address negative perceptions in key markets overseas to maintain confidence in Hong Kong"
Some amount of PR is IMHO also appropriate internally to inform people about things that are happening/available if they aren't otherwise well-known.
Parent is saying they are a customer shopping for holiday/business destinations and they decided to to do business with HK. In other words, HK just lost a sale.
This is just pure pedantry, because your whole argument would become null if the parent said "potential customer" instead of "customer".
I would consider it null already, given that the parent described their situation very explicitly, and it is clear as day that the situation implied "potential" in "customer".
Usually, a government's diplomatic arm (e.g. US Department of State) serves as their "international PR" function. So yes, governments do "pay" for PR, it's just done by their own employees most of the time.
Hong Kong is a special case as they're not a separate country, so China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs handles all their diplomacy for them (for better and for worse).
Often policies don't matter as much as how you promote it. China and Singapore are two places that promote their policies in a way that makes people at home patriotic and many people overseas jealous.
There was an article here on HN about Singapore a few days ago and I was relieved to see that not everyone in the comments is buying it.
It has come full circle; the PR industry was created to apply the principles of government propaganda in corporations, but propaganda isn't cool anymore, so they have to hire the PR firms.
In a dictatorship, you give them tax money because they said so, and they’ll do whatever the hell they want with it, because they aren’t accountable to you in any way.
Also to pay for retirement, roads and safety. Dictatorships have many shapes, they're not all corrupt to the core so much they tax-enslave their people.
Singapore and HK, for example, have very low taxes.
Sure, but GP was making a statement about the “purpose” of their tax money. Without accountability, the purpose is whatever the government wants, not what citizens want. That might be roads, but it could well be PR firms.
Technically you only need to repair their image with the powerful. I don't think there are any single-issue Saudi Arabia voters out there.
We're already seeing the effects of this. I saw on the news recently where someone described the recent Saudi Oil attacks as "Saudi Arabia's 9/11" -- an ironic statement, given the fact that more Saudi nationals died hijacking the planes on 9/11 (15 of the 19) than in this attack (0)
This type of thinking should be applied at all times not only when it affects our bottom line. How about the attacks and massacres that SA is doing to the Yemenis? How about US attacking Iraq? Etc.. Yes we should always be concerned!
This is an example of attempting to treat the symptom not the disease. Rather than fix the underlying socio-economic issues such as income inequality, lack of affordable housing, and the lack of social mobility and opportunities- the instinct is to hire PR to pretend it is better.
To be fair, that's what happens on the mainland where they don't need PR companies, they just censor everything everything that doesn't enthusiastically support their view.
I am sure some people protesting are advocating for socio-economic fixes but mostly the protests seem to be concerned more with "I'd rather not be kidnapped in the middle of the night and sent to a labour camp."
It actually started as opposition to an extradition bill that has since been shelved for now (for obvious reasons) and then transitioned to a call for full blown democracy and accountability of the police forces - who are now under the control of the Chinese government.
I think (rightly so) they are more afraid of the Chinese government coming in and strong arming their population like they do to their own population. The treatment of dissidents and the possibility of having to deal with the Chinese government in any fashion is something that makes the entire population nervous.
Or one could say that oppression advances by one funeral at a time. It is not like there haven't been examples of societies changing towards more totalitarian and oppressive over time.
I find it shocking how common this line of tough is now. Maybe the world dreamed about by people who actively celebrate the deaths of those who don't agree with them, is not such an utopia as we like to believe.
Cross - Say "Sorry, we will not do it again and we will fix our wrong doings";
️Check - Hire PR firm spreading bad propaganda to "address negative perceptions in key markets overseas to maintain confidence in Hong Kong"
Why???? It's the best time to show that Hong Kong is a democratic & lawful place by resolve the issue peacefully and make their people happy. It's a opportunity for the government if they play this right, don't blow it up!
What will happen as the end of the “transition” nears? Few in HK I assume will accept that the HK system is replaced with Chinese eceonomics and politics. By the time this question arises, everything indicates China will already be an Orwellian dystopia. HK doesn’t have natural resources. Its citizens and businesses can leave. So what China really stand to gain from its claims on HK?
China wants to assert its national sovereignty over HK. By controlling Hong Kong the communist government gains legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese people. There's quite nothing that binds together a people than a city of young people that doesn't want to be Chinese.
Is it weird that we know about this because the leader of Hong Kong announced it in a press conference? Surely it can only make them look worse in the international eye. Is this a subtle act of rebellion, or is she that clueless? Or is it expected to play better with the mainland, somehow?
I think you might've misunderstood. Hong Kong failed to hire any PR firms; they approached a number of firms, and they all declined (actually, two simply didn't respond at all).
I've never particularly wanted to travel to China. After seeing what the CCP has done, I have no desire to ever travel to China. However, after seeing the way the Hong Kong citizens behaved and placed such a high value on freedom of speech I truly hope to visit someday. Only on the condition that HK gets full autonomy. Hows that for PR
There is no comparison between the US treatment of Snowden and the ongoing human rights violations in China. China has obviously made great economic progress, but it is far from a modern democracy like the US or Taiwan or Japan or South Korea. No amount of whataboutism will change that fact.
We have ongoing human rights violations in the US. I'm not saying The United States is on equal moral footing with The People's Republic of China. I'm saying that both have a terrible track record, and claiming one is vastly superior is a reflection of your nationalism.
Here's a naive view: both the US and China have the death penalty. Hong Kong does not have the death penalty. Which is the more humane society?
Having been in both the US and China, I cannot think of more similar countries at the individual level for day to day activities, and when comparing local district governments. People still want to eat, get rich, and be happy, all as conveniently as possible, with minimal obvious intrusion from others. Only above that (and the US constitution is definitely a federal-level document) are there noticeable differences.
It's a real shame, there is a lot of innovation on both sides that would be wonderful to combine. Hong Kong is missing its chance by focusing on its conglomerates.
> So great is their control that they've built one of the greatest public rail networks in the world for the public good.
I don't know how good you know about Chinese government. But I think you made a mistake about the purpose of the investment and building by Chinese gov. The rail network is not "for the public good", at least it's not the major reason. It's for keeping GDP growth rate looks as high as possible otherwise no one/country can buy the over-produced industrial products like concrete and steels after subprime mortgage crisis.
> The assumption you're making here is that democracy is the better more "modern" way.
Democracy is not perfect but I am sure CCP is much worse.
>Democracy is not perfect but I am sure CCP is much worse.
This is Debate-able. If it's worse, it's not that much worse.
>I don't know how good you know about Chinese government. But I think you made a mistake about the purpose of the investment and building by Chinese gov. The rail network is not "for the public good", at least it's not the major reason. It's for keeping GDP growth rate looks as high as possible otherwise no one/country can buy the over-produced industrial products like concrete and steels after subprime mortgage crisis.
Isn't improving GDP a public good? What's better in your opinion? Bailing out a bank and letting the execs go on a vacation or building rail infrastructure?
But I get what you're saying. I would say for public rails it's both GDP and helping people move across the country. Cities with rail are way more efficient than cities without.
The increasing of that GDP was just the number. The Chinese national bank just produced more money and pay them to the building company. It's inflation. People cannot got much good from it.
Then again, as a Europen, I've said "Fuck China" and "Fuck The US" about equally often lately and would never consider visiting either until conditions improve...
Honestly, no one is going to care about either your or my comments about Chinese government on this niche forum. Think about it, what would Chinese government gain by arresting you? And why would they start looking at your comment history on hn at all?
not just hn. i've said it elsewhere. they may not even need to "look" in the future. They may just have systems in place that will just identify and catalogue all criticisms of china. And the system would then just pass your name through such a catalogue when doing a standard check on you as you pass through or travel there. Wouldn't be that hard for them to do.
> So great is their control that they've built one of the greatest public rail networks in the world for the public good. When's the last time the US did such a thing for the public good?
Public works projects happen all the time here. This is such a silly argument.
> No whataboutism will change the fact that it is controversial whether democracy or centralized control is better.
China is one of the safest countries in the world. While they're not as progressive as the west officially, they also are less likely to give a fuck about you being LGBT (ie. they don't care enough to mess with you).
> China is one of the safest countries in the world.
Is there actual statistics? The only source I found is from GlobalTimes which is clearly a mouth piece for China. The numbers also seem to be self reported. I trust it less than I trust the GDP numbers from China.
Safe is one thing. But what happens if you do get into trouble. Do you trust the authorities there? Last I heard, even the police chief has unknown sources of income.
Safe to do what is allowed. Make no mistake, I agree this is how all parts of the world should be doing. This is why we need to have laws. The problem in China is that the laws are not being applied equally to everyone. There is no transparency in the judiciary system and you will never know when or what you will be charged one day.
All mentions to homosexuality in criminal law were removed in 1997. In 2001, the Chinese Society of Psychiatry declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. However, such change is yet to be reflected by the regulations of National Health and Family Planning Commission,[20] a government branch that controls all regulations of health care services in China, which has resulted in psychiatric facilities and psychiatry education textbooks across the country still de facto considering homosexuality as a mental disorder and continuing to offer conversion therapy treatments.[1][21][22] Transgender identity is still classified as a disorder despite laws allowing legal gender changes.
Your post is unabashed propaganda, full of false dichotomies, whataboutism, and false equivalence, with no love of truth.
> China does not have freedom of speech but in a way neither does the US.
A radical and undefended claim. In what way is this true? You never say.
> did edward snowden have freedom?
Yes he did. Then he broke the law and ran away from the consequences of his actions.
> It's just another regime.
A single-party regime with no term limits on executive power is a stark contrast with a representative democratic federation designed with a multitude of checks and balances on its own power structures.
> you still have to use the products that China made for you because you as a country do not have the technical ability to manufacture the same products
False choice between Chinese products & domestic. No reasonable person believes that China is the sole manufacturing presence on Earth. There are a multitude of other options. China, however, does need the US -- the largest free market on the planet.
> Just like how the slaughter of millions of people by the nuclear bomb dropped on hiroshima by the united states does not define the united states as a country, neither do the protests of hong kong define China.
Those two things are indeed important, defining characteristics of the two countries you describe. One of them was an act of world war decades ago. The other is current events, the result of an illegal act of oppression by a dystopian communist state, heavily indicative of what China is today.
Right and the government is paying me to say this on HN of all places.
>A radical and undefended claim. In what way is this true? You never say.
I thought this was obvious. Snowden did not have freedom of speech to reveal that the government was spying on its own citizens. You do not have the freedom of speech to threaten others. You do not have the freedom of speech to lie and slander about someone, it is literally in the law and people can sue you for this. Literally the law in the united states controls your speech using the justification of "security." China uses the exact same excuse. Is it a valid excuse? in both cases, I'm not sure. Definitely the US is more lax on these laws then China overall, but the atrocities done by the US on snowden is only one aspect of a country and it does not define the entire regime or its people.
>A single-party regime with no term limits on executive power is a stark contrast with a representative democratic federation designed with a multitude of checks and balances on its own power structures.
Right, vs. a government where people in power can (and are regularly) bribed with corporate money. Checks and balances in the united states is a check written as a bribe with a balance of over a million.
>Those two things are indeed important, defining characteristics of the two countries you describe. One of them was an act of world war decades ago. The other is current events, the result of an illegal act of oppression by a dystopian communist state, heavily indicative of what China is today.
Yeah the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent civilians during wartime is excused with a couple of decades vs. a fucking protest happening right now can't be excused and must be used to define an entire nation and its people. That's not the point. The point, is the united states was never defined entirely by the bomb. You still are a country separate in culture and identity from a nuclear bomb or imperfections within the government.
China is largely the same thing. However because they are economic rivals with the US the media largely magnifies the things they do. You really need to go and live their to see that it's not as horrible as the media makes it out to be.
The LGBT person above feared for his life. That's next level brain washing right there.
>In summary, your thread rapidly devolved into a political flame war, I am sorry to have ever engaged with you, and I am done now.
Wow, if you regret engaging why the heck do you have to engage again then run away with your tail between your legs.
>Straw man. I made it clear that this act is definitive of the USA just as Chinese government's present day actions are definitive of it.
If this action defines you then you need to be executed. Literally for the murder of thousands. It's a war crime. Be glad it doesn't define the country or you.
>Undefended baseless hyperbolic claim.
Like your entire argument.
>You have defined freedom of speech in a way that merely assists your argument. No one should expect the freedom you describe.
I have defined it the way it's defined in english. If no one expects the freedom then there is no freedom in the first place. Your definition of freedom is a very specific subset, exacting and detailed, while mine is literally the dictionary definition of freedom and speech.
>Straw man. No one has accused you of this.
You literally said that I'm spreading propaganda rather than my opinions as if I'm trying to deliberately manipulate. Governments usually do this hence it's assumed that's what you implied. Either way, if anything your insidious response is probably what caused this whole thread to devolve into a flame war.
You aren't done. You never will be. I'm the one done with you, permanently.
Stop using the term strawman when your entire argument is a strawman.
> Never has a country build itself into a super power in so little time.
Stalin took the USSR from an pre-industrial economy to an industrial superpower in a couple of decades.
I do not consider either Stalin or the USSR an exemplar, but many people said very similar things about the Soviet Union, as you are saying about China, but I don't think history has validated the idea it was an exemplar.
China is different. It's success has been around a lot longer then the USSR and it's growth is one that is not comparable. The rate of GDP growth is unpresendented not just in recent history... But in human history.
What exactly has China done to "assimilate" Hong Kong? How is Hong Kong less diverse now? I've lived through the transition and I certainly haven't seen any sign of that.
You don't think teaching Chinese in Mandarin (5% first language) rather than Cantonese (90% first language) or trying to introduce national education into the curriculum is assimilation? Responding to criticism that it's brainwashing propaganda, here's what the chairman of a pro-Beijing education lobbying group had to say:
"A brain needs washing if there is a problem, just as clothes need washing if they're dirty and a kidney needs washing if it's sick," said Jiang Yudui, chairman of the Beijing-friendly China Civic Education Promotion Association of Hong Kong, according to news reports. Jiang's comments in July came at the same time that tens of thousands, including many parents pushing their children in strollers, took to the streets to protest against the plan.
> You don't think teaching Chinese in Mandarin (5% first language) rather than Cantonese (90% first language) or trying to introduce national education into the curriculum is assimilation?
No I do not. That's just what you teach to your citizens. When the US took over Puerto Rico, kids there damn well learned English, the American history, the national anthem, and the star spangled banner in school. Do you call that assimilation? Or is that OK because it's the US that did it?
> "When the US took over Puerto Rico, kids there damn well learned English, the American history, the national anthem, and the star spangled banner in school. Do you call that assimilation?"
If that's not assimilation, then I have no clue what the term means.
> "Or is that OK because it's the US that did it? "
If your argument relies on all Americans being hypocritical sycophants of the American government, it's a bad argument. Criticism of America is mainstream in America. One can be American and be critical of the American government, just as one can be Chinese and be critical of the Chinese government. In fact there is ample reason for both to be critical of both.
Call it assimilation if you want. My point is that it's what all governments will do under the situation. The fact that China did not push through national education forcibly shows that it's willing to forgo even that minimum amount of "assimilation". It has actually been a model of hands-off administration.
EDIT: Actually do not call it assimilation. Learning Mandarin as a shared language does not mean eradicating Cantonese, and most Hongkongers are ethnic Chinese and share much of the same culture, there's nothing to assimilate.
Wiki: Cultural assimilation is the process in which a minority group or culture comes to resemble a dominant group[1] or assume the values, behaviors, and beliefs of another group.
So yes, it is assimilation when you force your dialect on others.
> most Hongkongers are ethnic Chinese and share much of the same cultuRe
I beg to differ. Mao destroyed a lot of cultural relics during the Cultural Revolution. Things that used to be wide spread such as idol worshiping is no longer seen in China and only in Hong Kong. Hong Kong resembles more of the traditional China culture than China does today.
An attempt to deemphasize Cantonese in Guangdong does not constitute eradication.
Mandarin in Hong Kong as far as I know would've been strictly in addition to, not instead of Cantonese, much like learning English in Quebec.
So again, not assimilation.
> Mao destroyed a lot of cultural relics during the Cultural Revolution.
The relics may have been destroyed, but (most of) the people lived, some still living. Culture doesn't die with the relics, it lives with the people.
> Things that used to be wide spread such as idol worshiping is no longer seen in China
It's certainly less wide spread now, especially in big cities. But it's still common in small towns and villages. Dive deeper next time you visit China.
> The relics may have been destroyed, but (most of) the people lived, some still living. Culture doesn't die with the relics, it lives with the people.
I would have to disagree with this. Those people are in their 70s now. And without relics, there is no anchor for cultural values.
Cambodia did the same thing and it has been a disaster to their culture.
The destruction of the relics was on purpose. Hence “cultural” revolution.
> its stated goal was to preserve 'true' Communist ideology in the country by purging remnants of capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society, and to re-impose Mao Zedong Thought as the dominant ideology within the Party
It was a deliberate attack on Chinese culture to solidify Maos power.
Your statement sounds too much like marketing speak without any substance. I think I heard it before. Oh yeah: Thor Ragnorak. It is low effort.
> I would have to disagree with this. Those people are in their 70s now. And without relics, there is no anchor for cultural values.
Relics without the people are pretty meaningless. There's very little you can learn about the ancient Egyptian culture even with all the preserved relics.
Sadly we lose tradition, heritage, and culture with the passing of every person. That's universal, Cultural Revolution or not, east or west. But personally I've seen new relics and artifacts recreated after the end of Cultural Revolution, so all is not lost.
> Your statement sounds too much like marketing speak without any substance. I think I heard it before. Oh yeah: Thor Ragnorak.
Well if it's cliche it's only because it's true. BTW never saw that movie, or any of the recent Marvel junk.
We are talking about the same Hong Kong in which sellers of questionable books were disappeared to the mainland, apparently without the knowledge of the HK government.
If it is a model of restraint, what would be your definition of unrestrained. It seems like you would have a different way of handling the situation? Would love to hear it.
That is assimilation I think by definition, without the value judgment. The question is whether or not Puerto Rico wanted it and if it was forced.
Puerto Rico is a poor example, especially since they seem to want to be inducted into the U.S. officially as a state! Hong Kong does not seem to share the same sentiment with Beijing.
Since you're revisiting this thread. I will try to clarify the issue.
No it is not. It's only assimilation if you aim to wipe out the local language and culture and replace them with your own.
So it's not assimilation in either case, Puerto Rico or Hong Kong, as the US did not attempt to eradicate Spanish, nor is China trying to eradicate Cantonese.
People who accuse China of assimilation are surely smart enough to know the difference. The thing is, they have already made up their minds, China is evil no matter what it does.
"In 1914, the Puerto Rican House of Delegates voted unanimously in favor of independence from the United States, but this was rejected by the U.S. Congress as "unconstitutional" " [1]
However Chinese and Cantonese share the same writing system.
And don't put gibberish Cantonese scripts as an example, it's called 白字 which means illiterate writing style. You can type that online in forums and IM, SMS to friends but it's not something official nor standard. Should Ebonics be taught in schools instead of standard English?
Mandarin and Cantonese share the same writing system in the sense that English and French share the same writing system: mostly the same characters, innumerous cognates, and I can read the back of my cereal box.
Spoken Cantonese is a different language from spoken Mandarin, with different grammar and vocabulary, and when you write them down you get correspondingly different written languages. That written Cantonese hasn't undergone a formal standardization the way Mandarin did in the early 20th century doesn't make written Cantonese gibberish, just not fully standardized. And written Cantonese isn't only used for memeing on forums or text-speak, it's also widely used for casual writing in newspaper columns or in advertisement, or to authentically transcribe spoken Cantonese (rather than paraphrasing in Mandarin). See also:
[Edit: That kids were (and perhaps are) taught to read and write in Mandarin at school using Cantonese sound values, rather than writing in Cantonese, also doesn't say all that much about Cantonese as a written language. Rather, it demonstrates that Hong Kong is a diglossic (well, polyglossic) society.]
> Mandarin and Cantonese share the same writing system in the sense that English and French share the same writing system: mostly the same characters, innumerous cognates, and I can read the back of my cereal box.
Completely wrong. A Chinese character is more or less equivalent to a word in English/French. Are all the words the same in English and French? Can you look at French text and know what it's saying if you didn't speak French already? Someone who speaks only Cantonese can read and understand text written by Mandarin speakers without any issue. The reverse is less true, see below.
> Spoken Cantonese is a different language from spoken Mandarin, with different grammar and vocabulary, and when you write them down you get correspondingly different written languages.
Wrong again. They use largely the same grammar and vocabulary.
Because Cantonese is ancient Chinese, over the years they have lost track of what semantic characters to use for some of the Cantonese words.
Tracking down which semantic character corresponds to which Cantonese word could be done if there's enough interest and funding for such work. Once the mapping is done, you will be able to write down Cantonese and have it understood all over China.
Since the work hasn't been done, you can only write down Cantonese with the help of some phonetic characters, which denote only pronunciation but not meaning. It's not gibberish, but neither is it proper written Cantonese. EDIT: Even in its current form, written Cantonese is still 80% intelligible to Mandarin speakers.
> A Chinese character is more or less equivalent to a word in English/French.
Most Chinese characters are monosyllabic, and most Chinese words are polysyllabic consisting of multiple characters. A Chinese character is a morpheme, and it also happens that many common words are also single character morphemes.
> Someone who speaks only Cantonese can read and understand text written by Mandarin speakers without any issue.
Because we've all been taught to read and write in Mandarin from the very beginning of our education. Again, Hong Kong is a diglossic society.
> They use largely the same grammar and vocabulary. Because Cantonese is ancient Chinese, over the years they have lost track of what semantic characters to use for some of the Cantonese words.
They share a lot of grammar and vocabulary (...but not all of it) because they share a language ancestor. Cantonese is not ancient Chinese, but it's a descendant that conserved a lot more consonants than Mandarin (and a lot of sound merger is actually happening right now in Hong Kong over the last 100 years, but it's commonly derided as "lazy sound").
> Once the mapping is done, you will be able to write down Cantonese and have it understood all over China. Since the work hasn't been done, you can only write down Cantonese with the help of some phonetic characters, which denote only pronunciation but not meaning. It's not gibberish, but neither is it proper written Cantonese.
See [https://books.google.ca/books?id=pFnP_FXf-lAC&pg=PA51] for a description of common strategies for writing Cantonese. Phonetic borrowing is one strategy, and the most common one, yes, but that's no different than characters in standard Chinese, the vast majority of which are a radical with a semantic category (but not a complete meaning) + a phonetic component.
A Mandarin-only speaker can decide for themselves how intelligible that colloquial Cantonese exchange on page 52 is, what with the difference in vocabulary and grammar.
> Most Chinese characters are monosyllabic, and most Chinese words are polysyllabic consisting of multiple characters.
Most modern Chinese words are polysyllabic, but these words are the same in Cantonese and Mandarin. Your comparison to English and French is still false.
> > Someone who speaks only Cantonese can read and understand text written by Mandarin speakers without any issue.
> Because we've all been taught to read and write in Mandarin from the very beginning of our education.
I doubt that. Suppose you were only ever taught written Cantonese. I believe you'd still be able to read Mandarin writings, simply because you would still recognize all the words.
> They share a lot of grammar and vocabulary
So they are not so different after all.
> Phonetic borrowing is one strategy, and the most common one, yes, but that's no different than characters in standard Chinese, the vast majority of which are a radical with a semantic category (but not a complete meaning) + a phonetic component.
Phonetic borrowing, or other ways of making up new characters, might not have been necessary. If we could be bothered to trace the origin of a made-up Cantonese character and find the original Chinese character.
For example, 冇 is wholly unnecessary when we already have 無.
Even with the lazy approach of making up Cantonese specific characters willy nilly, I counted only dozens of them from the Wikipedia article you linked. So how different is Cantonese really from Mandarin, besides the pronunciation?
Looks like you are a Hong Kong nativist. I can totally understand, and even support, your desire and struggle for ever higher level of autonomy and self determination.
However, spewing blatant lies about your own language, culture, or heritage invites only ridicule and scorn from honest people who know any about Hong Kong and China.
The extradiction treaty for one. They want Hong Kong under their legal and administrative systems. Meanwhile the people in the street have made it abundantly clear they would rather have anything but that in downright "heretical" terms to the national mythologies.
I don't like the ill-fated extradition treaty either. But even if it did pass, with its narrow scope and all the strings attached, how exactly would that place Hong Kong under the Chinese legal and administrative system again?
The treaty is dead. The people still in the streets have other agendas that have nothing to do with rebelling against "assimilation".
> The people still in the streets have other agendas
Here is that agenda, also known as the 5 demands:
1. Kill the extradition bill. Done.
2. Retract use of the word “riot” to classify the protests.
3. Release and drop charges for protesters who have been arrested.
4. An inquiry into the widespread, well documented police brutality.
5. Universal suffrage.
In other words, they want their right to peacefully protest & vote for their leaders. To claim they have such rights already would be to ignore their words and their plight entirely.
HK is definitely a spring board to democratizing China.
China can follow a model like Taiwan (ROC) and be very happy. People in Taiwan have democracy, social services, and feel great pride in their country.
China has choices it can make, it's the people's choice. If it really wants to be great, it will entrust the power in its people by giving them human rights like EU and liberties like USA. It will respect intellectual property laws and have an open internet. It will pay reparations to the people of Xinjiang and Tibet and give them their sovereignty.
Hong Kong is proof the system works, but the system can't work when they let property flippers from the mainland drive up real estate prices. The people of HK are suffering greatly because of the greedy few.
The jist of the HK situation is this: China is trying to subvert the democracy in HK by taking the voting slots so they're all bought out to Beijing. But HK is an international city.
It's like : I give you tax money to do a good job, but you spend it to convince me that you're doing a good job instead of actually delivering getting shit done.