Hong Kong and Western Hypocrisy
Last month forty-four protesters were arrested by the Hong Kong police for rioting. Though it was initially a peaceful protest aimed at disrupting public transit, that changed when the police arrived with tear gas, riot gear, and batons. These clashes did not go unseen, however, as the international media and social networking sites were flooded with images of the umbrella-clad protesters. To give credit where it’s due, these activists intentionally waved American flags and wrote their signs in English because they knew it would draw in international support. After all, which red-blooded American wouldn’t cheer on an oppressed group rallying against injustice?
Well, most of them, it turns out.
As others have pointed out, the same people, media outlets, and corporations celebrating the Hong Kong’s protests have opposed anti-fascist and anti-racist movements across the western world — if they even noticed them to begin with.
Who Stood with Standing Rock?
In 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux bravely resisted the construction of an illegal pipeline across their land. Similarly to Hong Kong, their territory was taken from them without their consent and governed by a string of arbitrary treaties, and were forced to accept new rules which violated the terms of those treaties. Unlike Hong Kong, the Sioux endured a genocide before their land was stolen. And unlike Hong Kong, there was no outrage over Standing Rock.
During the resistance, old women were gassed, sprayed with water in freezing temperatures, beaten, arrested, and imprisoned by police. My friends were gassed while fighting for the sovereign rights of the Sioux. Their clothes ruined, possessions burned, eyes stung by chemicals. This state violence was recorded dozens of times, and sent to media and politicians across the world. And they were answered with silence.
Few Democrats so much as mentioned the suppression. Republicans celebrated it. Across social and corporate media, the indigenous activists were portrayed as hippies at best and savages at worst. Standing Rock never hit the front page of Reddit, never elicited international outrage, and never inspired the outrage of the “freedom-loving” Right.
As the New York Times publishes its concerns over the Chinese military converging on Hong Kong, I can’t help but recall the military-grade armored vehicles which were all but given to North Dakota’s police by the Department of Defense, and used against peaceful protesters. The NYT had no equivalent outrage about this incident of military violence, opting instead to report the view from “both sides” of Standing Rock. It would be shocking to see the Times publish an Op-Ed from the POV of a Chinese footsoldier or Hong Kong Policeman — but that’s exactly what they did during the rebellion at Standing Rock.
Whose Lives Matter?
Black Lives Matter began as a grass-roots social media movement after George Zimmerman was acquitted for murdering a black teenager named Travon Martin. Though Zimmerman changed his story multiple times, and in spite of the logical impossibility of the timeline he gave police, he was set free, and worse still, became a hero of the burgeoning alt-right. This event was followed by a series of police murders committed against black men and children, culminating in a recent study that found 1/1000 black boys will be murdered by police.
BLM and other activist groups engaged in a series of protests and uprisings in response to these murders since 2012. Media coverage of these uprisings has been almost invariably pro-police, highlighting violence by activists, obscuring the violence of police, and framing the victims as criminals and thugs — even as white mass shooters receive media sympathy.
The historical oppression of black Americans goes back to the foundation of America and remains enshrined in the constitution. Few groups have as much cause to revolt and resist, and yet, western media portrays BLM (and minority rights advocates in general) as a purely contemporary and cultural organization. On the rare occasion that Black Lives Matter enters the public discourse, it is more often discussed in terms of semantics (“why not ALL lives matter??”) than it is in terms of the systematic oppression it was built to resist.
Coverage of Hong Kong dives deep into the specifics of its legal situation and colonial past, yet mentioning slavery, Jim Crow, or gerrymandering when reporting on BLM is somehow taboo.
While the Hong Kong police are rightfully portrayed as the weapons of an oppressive regime, American cops can shoot tear gas and rubber bullets indiscriminately and be praised as heroes. Even in cases where the media admits police wrongdoing it is always framed as an anomaly, while the violence of Chinese police is attributed directly to China’s regime and institutions.
A Tale of Two Colonies
Arguably worse than negative coverage and public opposition, however, is complete silence. That is what the minority region of Kashmir is enduring as I write this article. Like Hong Kong, a semi-autonomous region granted special privileges after direct colonial governance ended is having those privileges revoked. Like Hong Kong, protestors are facing violent retaliation, internet outages, and information warfare. Unlike Hong Kong, however, Kashmir’s embattled independence fighters are enjoying virtually no outrage by US media, and little-to-no coverage on social networks. At time of writing. Hong Kong has been searched 6x more than Kashmir — down from a peak disparity of nearly 10x.
Indeed, while Hong Kong has only endured tear gas and police beatings, Kashmir has had its utilities severed, its streets flooded with military, and its civilians indiscriminately shelled. All the while, the world has looked away.
This hyper-focus on Hong Kong can be explained both culturally and geopolitically. Though the freedom fighters in Kashmir haven’t fought against white supremacy or American institutions (unlike Standing Rock and BLM), it does stand against a power which is geopolitically aligned with the west, and does so while majority Muslim. Combined, these make Kashmir’s struggle against tyranny much less appealing than that of Hong Kong. History teaches us that dark skinned Islamic peoples will only be aided by America so long as they have oil, promote Capital, or fight “communists.”
Kashmir meets none of these conditions, and so Kashmir must suffer.
Conclusion
I long for liberals and conservatives with the courage to admit the true reason behind their selective support for oppressed peoples. It isn’t based in a general distaste for political violence, nor in even the most abstract notion of morality. There is no universal rubric by which each movement is scored, no modicum of consistency in assumption and judgement.
The real difference between Hong Kong and Standing Rock is which tyranny they stand against. Hong Kong stands against a non-white geopolitical rival. Standing Rock stood against capitalism, colonialism, and white supremacy. And woe betide any movement which dares challenge that trinity of cultural domination.
If you enjoy my work, please consider following me on Twitter or donating to my Patreon. I could not do this without your support.
