Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Many people still argue whether the Umbrella Movement is a civil disobedience protest or a riot. The nature of them is different, the former is to fight for the rights and interests of society but the latter is to fight for self-interest and violence is involved. Therefore, seeking the nature of the umbrella movement is conducive to unraveling the argument. Also, the reasons for many participants in the umbrella movement will be figured out. Although the umbrella movement was not successful, universal suffrage did not come true, the Hong Kong society is and will be affected. In addition, the impact on Hong Kong society mostly are negative such as the autonomy declining and the society being lacerated. Therefore, there are some analyses of the future of Hong Kong.
Firstly, to know the nature of the umbrella movement, the definitions of civil disobedience protest, and riot have to be clarified. Civil disobedience was invented by Henry David Thoreau in 1848. It was used to describe his rejection of paying the state tax imposed by the US government to carry out a war in Mexico (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013). There are several features of civil disobedience protest (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013) such as conscientiousness, communication, publicity, and nonviolence. Conscientiousness refers to the reason for disobedient breaking the law is the perception of the societal interests. Communication is that in the case of a flagrant violation of the law, a person usually has a forward-looking and backward-looking goal. She not only asks for her negation and condemnation of a particular law or policy but also raises public concern about this particular issue, thereby causing changes in the law or policy. Publicity means that disobedience is not concealed or secret but it merely informs the legal authorities openly and fairly. And, violence and civil disobedience are contradictory. On the other hand, a riot means that it is a form of civil disorder characterized by unorganized groups slamming in sudden violence, destruction, or other criminal incidents. Riots usually involve the destruction and destruction of private and public property ( Social Science LibreTexts, 2019). Besides, it can be seen that the rioters usually have no conscientiousness or fear of legal sanctions. For example, there are commonalities between the 2011 England Riots and the 2016 Mong Kok Riot, the rioters both wore masks to prevent their faces were recognized through CCTV. Therefore, it can be seen that violence and the use of force always will not be a concern in civil disobedience protests except in self-defense when facing armed suppression. However, rioters always damage society and attack police officers aggressively. There is a huge difference between civil disobedience protests and riots. After the definition of civil disobedience protest and riot are clarified, it is easy to see the nature of the umbrella movement is identical to civil disobedience protest or riot. The three initiators, Chu Yiu Ming, Chan Kin Man, and Tai Yiu Ting, surrendered after the umbrella movement had occurred. Also, they informed the police and public of the start date and the end date of central. Besides, the participants revolted against the police officers only when they were thrown 87 tear gas bombs, a kind of self-defense. Most importantly, the umbrella movement aimed to strive for universal suffrage, a public interest and ideal. Thus, it can be concluded that the nature of the umbrella movement is a civil disobedience protest.
More than ten thousand protesters participated in the umbrella movement but there were different reasons for participation among them. In the beginning, there were around 30,000 people on the streets but the number of participants grew to 50,000 after the police officers used tear gas bombs against the protesters ( South China Morning Post, 2014). It shows that the aim of some participants who participated in the umbrella movement was to protect and support the unarmed and helpless protesters. They could not bear to see the protesters who did not act in any violent behaviour, treated with tear gas bombs. Therefore, the most important thing to those protesters was not the achievement of universal suffrage, but the safety and life of their compatriots. The second type of protesters followed the herd, they did not understand the purpose of the civil disobedience protest but seeking for conformity. This kind of conformity can be regarded as compliance, an individual accepts impact because he or she hopes to reach an approving reaction from others especially the significant ones such as family and friends (McLeod, 2016). The way of thinking of these kinds of protesters may be that they do not want to miss any collective memory in their social circle. The last and most important type of protesters was that they wanted universal suffrage could be implemented to pursue the expected democracy. They hoped that their chief executive could be generated by one man one vote after the National People’s Congress had decided in 2007 that the chief executive would be generated through universal suffrage.
There are numerous impacts after the umbrella movement existed. And, it is thought that most impacts were not beneficial to Hong Kong Society. For example, peripheral nationalism exists again will damage the relationship between Hong Kong citizens and the central government. It is essentially opposed to the mobilization of the edge of the integration strategy around the center (Seiler, 1989). In nationalist literature, peripheral nationalism is defined as the claim of a unique identity by people living in specific territories of a nation-state. Conceptually, peripheral nationalism does not care about realizing an independent state ; in fact, it is a complex phenomenon involving a variety of political propositions, including the protection of local culture the emphasis on regional autonomy, and the pursuit of complete division (Fong, 2017). For example, the peripheral nationalist movements in Wales, Brittany, and Friesland are mainly to promote the language of the region, while in Galicia, peripheral nationalists focus on requiring greater regional autonomy. In other regions, such as Northern Ireland, the Basque Country, and Corsica, peripheral nationalist political development has become a continuing violent campaign to pursue territorial division. However, peripheral nationalism in each territory has one thing in common, preventing the entry of a centralized state (Fong, 2017). Peripheral nationalism is another by-product of nationalism, that is, national building nationalism, defined as the center consciously absorbing or integrating culturally distinctive territories in specific countries . Nationalist scholars generally believe that France is a pioneer in nation-building nationalism because it effectively integrates various regions into ‘an indivisible country.’ However, this process of integration will cause more and more people to realize the unique geographical identity of the surrounding areas and bring ‘the moment of resistance against the center. From this perspective, peripheral nationalism can be regarded as the reaction to the center’s integration strategy for the center (Fong, 2017). It is seen that peripheral nationalist sentiment has a growing trend. In the 1970s, Hong Kong quickly became a metropolis, forming a new identity among residents, and Hong Kong people, and forming a farther distance from the feeling of ‘belonging to the Chinese nation.’ In the 1980s and 1990s, political controversies surrounding the imminent transfer of sovereignty further consolidated the distinctive Hong Kong identity based on Hong Kong’s liberal system and the values of the rule of law and freedom. Speech and human rights. To a large extent, a unique Hong Kong identity has gradually evolved into a unique form of nationalism that emphasizes the uniqueness of Hong Kong and China. It must be emphasized that, unlike the decades from the 1970s to the 21st century, the identity of Hong Kong people is largely based on the socio-economic superiority of Hong Kong people to mainlanders. Since 2009, this identity has been revived in the new context of we, Hong Kongers. Resistance to ‘invaders’ (continental people). To apply the concept of peripheral nationalism to Hong Kong, the revival of Hong Kong’s identity in recent years is a reactionary, aimed at defending Hong Kong’s autonomy, core values, people’s resentment towards lifestyles such as the influx of mainland tourists, and simplifying and the language of traditional Chinese, against the merger strategy of Beijing (Fong, 2017). Peripheral nationalism is fundamentally a peripheral resistance in the face of threats of assimilation and integration into the center. The original territory-wide telephone survey commissioned by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Plan in 2015 best illustrates the dynamics of nationalist sentiment in Hong Kong. The telephone survey showed that the average score of a high degree of autonomy was 8.13 (out of 10), while 60.7% of the respondents expressed their strong agreement and strongly agreed that ‘Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy has now entered’. Among the respondents, 61.8% said that the Central People’s Government is ‘the greatest threat to Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.’
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.