During the second half of 2014, the streets of Hong Kong swelled into a sea of colorful umbrellas crashing against walls of riot police. This Umbrella Revolution, named for their impromptu use to deflect pepper spray, was led by students, and demanded Beijing to allow full and free elections in Hong Kong. The students’ actions are historic for two reasons. First, There hasn’t been a major democratic protest in China since what has been called the Tiananmen Square Massacre, a huge rally which ended in the deaths of many students at the hands of security forces. That was also when the famous tank man picture was captured, framing the David vs. Goliath narrative the world so readily embraced. Second, it is historical because Hong Kong is one of the few places that has experienced recent rule by both a liberal western democracy and arguably the world’s last Communist power. Therefore, many are eager to interpret Hong Kong’s displeasure under Chinuese rule as a testament to the universal virtues of Western Democracy. Ironically, this type of rationale is precisely what perpetuates disdain for the West, and what many call “cultural imperialism”. This article attempts to highlight the historical and cultural context necessary to complete the narrative of the Umbrella Revolution: the scars of imperialism, modern political sabotage, and double standards in the West.

Tienanmen Square, 1989.

To be clear, this article isn’t about whether Hong Kong deserves democracy. For the record, much of the Chinese middle class, well educated, well informed, and well traveled, believe in the virtues of democracy. But they also feel that democracy cannot take root without first developing a culture resistant to corruption and an educated population resistant to manipulation. They need only point to the failed democratic experiments in Afghanistan and Iraq and the crumbling economies of the Arab Spring nations, which are no more “democratic” now than before their respective revolutions. To the Chinese, the immediate need for territorial integrity and economic growth — which has fueled not only Chinese, but global prosperity — takes priority over the grievances of the students in Hong Kong. Any political instability that may trigger unrest elsewhere, especially in places already mired in controversy (e.g. Tibet), may dissuade investment and upset a delicate global economic balance in which China plays a huge role.

Now on to the first missing piece: the scars of imperialism. The Chinese see the return of Hong Kong as the reversal of a historic injustice. Hong Kong, one of the largest ports in China, was effectively annexed by the British during the opium war — a war fought over the British right to force addictive opium upon the Chinese as leverage to trade for valuable items such as silk and tea. It was during this same period that other Western nations, including the United States, carved China into spheres of influence ripe for colonial exploitation. For a people that called itself the “middle kingdom,” this shame left a permanent scar on the hearts of generations to come. To the modern Chinese, territorial integrity justifies many controversial issues, from Tibet to Taiwan to Hong Kong.

Chinese opium smokers were badly addicted and thousands died. When China attempted to ban imports of opium, but British sent warship into Chinese harbors to force trade upon them.

Fast forward to the late twentieth century. The British returns Hong Kong to China under the condition that the former colony would preserve political autonomy (i.e. free elections) for fifty years. However, China quickly sought to re-exert influence, requiring all candidates running for Hong Kong’s top post to be vetted by Beijing. This was what triggered the protests. This leads to our second missing piece, political sabotage.

The narrative so far seems to imply that the United Kingdom attempted to preserve democracy in Hong Kong. Missing from the conversation however, is the fact that since the British conquest of Hong Kong in the 1800s, the people of Hong Kong never had full and free elections. In fact, it was not until the mid-1980s during the global wave of anti-colonial sentiment that forced Britain to face the inevitability of Hong Kong’s return to China that discussions regarding democratic reforms began in the colony. In other words, Britain planted the seed for free elections only near the end of its 150 year rule, when Britain knew Hong Kong would have to be handed back to a single party government which had no elections. The resulting clash of ideology was predictable, and conveniently troublesome for China.

Also missing is this inevitable question: if China was to allow 50 years of Hong Kong self-rule, what would happen after the fifty years? Is Hong Kong prepared to relinquish all its claims and rights to self-governance at the whim of Beijing? Of the many words spoken by the protesters, the question remains conveniently unanswered.

But of course, this isn’t about broken contracts, but rather about the virtues of democracy. This is what makes the last missing piece so infuriating — the reason the West continues to garner such animosity from many parts of the world. Criticism of Chinese action in Hong Kong is a perfect example of the West’s now habitual tendency for setting double standards. There exists a place in the United States where even the license plates point to the lack of free elections. With the motto “taxation without representation,” the District of Columbia is home to over half a million people whom have lived with little control over their own governance. This is sanctioned by the United States constitution, which specifies that Congress may “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over the District of Columbia — a Congress whom the residents of D.C. have no vote in electing. In fact, a recent ballot decision by D.C. residents to legalize marijuana in the District was essentially overturned by Congressional action fueled by the political self-interest of anti-drug crusaders from other States. The D.C. local government can theoretically be terminated at any time at the will of Congressional representatives whom, again, are not accountable to the residents of the District. Where are their champions? Would Americans find it acceptable for China to criticize the lack of free elections in the District of Columbia?

In the months of daily mass protests in Hong Kong, the police brought out no lethal weapons and the military was completely absent from the picture. There were no deaths and the city remained largely unscathed. Far from the bloodshed of the Arab Spring revolutions that the West has compared Hong Kong to, the Chinese response was more restrained even than Ferguson, where heavily armed police patrolled burning streets in armored vehicles. So, with the bigger picture in view, one has to wonder who really plays the part of Goliath: a rising nation struggling to exert control over its own affairs or the world police who more than once enforced its brand of democracy on others with the barrel of a gun?