The article is part of the 'Hong Kong Anti-extradition Demonstrations: One Year Ago Today' initiative which aims to raise awareness for the movement and also to debunk some myths regarding the movement’s origins and core elements.

Due to the article's original length, we have had to split its content over three separate pieces. For a more complete understanding of the discourse surrounding 'Hong Kong Nationalism,' please refer to the links below.

• 'Hong Kong Nationalism' and 'Hong Kong Independence': why 'national identification' cannot be directly equated with 'independence'

• The ‘Hong Kong problem’ and the current socio-political climate: the chicken or the egg debate

Chinese Nationalism, Supporters of British Colonialism and ‘Localism’: Why there has always been a lack of national sentiment amongst the people of Hong Kong.

The lack of collective unity felt in Hong Kong owes massively to its historical and cultural background. Having undergone a turbulent 20th century, characterised by two regime changes in China in 1949 and 1966 respectively and later the end to British colonial rule in 1997, whilst nationalist sentiments were arguably present, they were never powerful enough to stimulate a political movement. ‘Nationalism’ in Hong Kong was defined by sentiments of ‘Chinese nationalism’, ‘localism’ alongside supporters of British colonialism.

During China’s regime changes, Hong Kong became a haven for socio-political refugees and was often seen as the ‘settlement colony.’ Not only did many of these dissenters see Hong Kong as a temporal refuge in ‘Greater China’ but some remained intent on returning to the ‘mainland.’ These intents whilst echoed strong sentiments of ‘Chinese nationalism’, regional separation during the 20th century diluted these feelings and instead strengthened Hong Kong’s social identification.

Following the 1949 Chinese Communist Revolution, the closing of borders between the Mainland and Hong Kong signified an end to socio-cultural exchange. The two regions became two non-interacting circles and underwent separate economic and political developments. Regional isolation became a driving force for the development of cultural nationalism, alternatively known as ‘localism’.

Defined as an ‘ideology that centres around defining and preserving a distinct Hong Kong culture and identity’, ‘localism’ at the time emphasized Hong Kong’s unique Cantonese language. On a backdrop of ‘official Chinese nationalism’ in the mainland, which homogenised cultural nationalism in the image of the state, the Cantonese pop culture scene in Hong Kong was just taking off. Across music, film, television, and creative production industries, the Cantonese language was popularised in the Asiatic region. The Cantonese language spoken in Hong Kong differs from its counterpart in Canton and its singularity helped firm an identity that was distinct from China.

However, due to its generation of baby boomers, it was arguably the paradox of their national identity that allowed for ‘localism’ to be rooted so strongly within the arts and culture. For this generation, whilst their experiences were of British colonial rule, they also witnessed the downfall of the Great British Empire and popularisation of Marxism. Western studies at the time promoted the Cultural Revolution as a success and ‘national identification’ was characterised by a mixture of Chinese nationalism and British colonialism. Chinese nationalism remained strong throughout and it was not until the 1966 Cultural Revolution when there witnessed a significant strengthening in support for British colonialism. Support for ‘Chinese nationalism’ waned as Hong Kong’s ‘culture of emigration’ began to develop; its formation often referred to as ‘a series of awakenings.’

The period spanning the 1966 Cultural Revolution until the 1997 Handover of Hong Kong was characterised by mass migrations. Driven by sentiments of distrust for the Chinese government, the number of people leaving the region was on a continuous rise throughout the 80s and its numbers peaked at 62,000 people a year in 1990. (In gross terms, 62,000 people was more than one percent of Hong Kong’s population at the time). The significance of repeated ‘brain drains’ in Hong Kong’s population make-up is brought to light when considering the causes of the exodus. If ‘localism’ was previously centred on the Cantonese language, this period further revealed that social identification was rooted much deeper than in the common language. Whilst language undeniably complements cultural identification, Hong Kong’s social identification lacked foundations necessary to proffer as a reckonable force. The continued outflux of people meant that its ‘indigenous’ culture was never able to cement itself and ‘localism’ eventually lost its cultural character.

National identification which surfaced during this time followed as repercussions of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration and the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre. Student-led pro-democracy movements were prevalent in Hong Kong during the 70s. Whilst they were short-lived, its sentiments were later rekindled by the joint declaration in 1984. Deluded by promises of a ‘return of democracy’, the offer of semi-autonomous rule for 50 years under the joint declaration failed to meet expectations and turned away those which supported British colonialism. Whilst hope for greater degrees of autonomy resurfaced during the 1980s pro-democracy movement in China, its disappointments were silenced following the CCP crackdown on Tiananmen Square on July 4th 1989. Government censorship of the event followed by arrests and exile of the organisers whilst keeping tight surveillance over the relatives of those who died served to remind those in Hong Kong of the luxury that was political freedom and that the Handover in 1997 would necessarily signify its end. Within just half a decade, supporters of the colonialist rhetoric and beliefs of Chinese nationalism dissipated in an atmosphere of disappointment and despair. What became apparent was that Hong Kong’s future could only be guaranteed by the ‘emergence of a more decent and humane government in China’. However, economic prosperity which followed the period meant people were distracted from addressing the paradoxical nature of their identities.

The 1997 Handover of Hong Kong arguably marked the consolidation of the first generation ‘Hong Kong nationalism’. Despite mass migration, those who remained were granted greater room for self-discovery of its own identity. Its characterisation developed into the current ‘Hong Kong problem’; one defined not by cultural differences but by ‘core values’.

Note that opinions expressed in the article above do not represent the overall stance of Asiatic Affairs, Students' Union UCL or University College London. If you have read something you would like to respond to, please get in touch with uclasiaticaffairs@gmail.com.

Editors' Note: As a blanket disclaimer for the entire ‘Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Demonstrations: One Year Ago Today’ initiative, we will not be disclosing the identities of any of the contributors to the initiative. We thank everyone who has submitted a piece of their own work and we apologise for not being able to openly accredit you for your contributions.