Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 October 10

= October 10 =

Turkey / Syria
What were the Turkey / Syria relation like prior to the Arab Spring or prior to 9/11. Were there positive of negative relatons between Erdogan and al-Assad? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Negative as far as I remember in history. Turkey still miss having been the Ottoman Empire, of which Syria was a part. Later, Turkey entered NATO to check Russian influence, while Syria styled itself socialist, embraced Soviet/Russian help and gave it a naval and air base. Syria warred with Israel, Turkey made friend with it. Syria tolerated Kurd who where fighting in Turkey. etc. Gem fr (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's also the long-standing problem of Hatay Province, which is part of modern Turkey but whose annexion Syria never recognized. This was a constant source of tensions between the two countries. --Xuxl (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Had you already seen the article Syria–Turkey relations? It does tend toward more recent events, though as noted, you don't have to go too far back until you get to a point where they were just part of the same empire. --BDD (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See also Kurds in Syria who are at the crux of the current problems. Kurds in Turkey gives more context. Alansplodge (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The relations were improving for a few years before the Arab Spring. See . Icek~enwiki (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau under PRC
Hong Kong has obviously been in the news a lot lately due to conflicts with the larger People's Republic of China. Given that Macau has a similar status and was transferred to the PRC just two years later, has it experienced similar conflicts? If not, can we say why not without just wildly speculating? --BDD (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, please reconsider. This is a legitimate question that does not require debate, any more than above questions about impeachment or Turkey and Syria. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to you being referred to RS on the subject, if any. That is the point of a reference desk. The impeachment one in particular, since you cite it, seems to have degenerated into many expressions of personal opinion. Also, I'm not certain what you mean by "conflicts with the larger People's Republic of China". As I understand it, whatever is going on is internal to Hong Kong, though that is of course part of "the larger People's Republic of China". It might be best if you rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I just noted that Macau and Hong Kong followed similar arcs in going from long-held European colonies to being transferred to the PRC, both with timelines and arrangements that left them with special status. One is experiencing great upheaval over its relationship with the rest of the PRC, and the other seems not to be—at least not that I had heard of. I simply found this interesting and wanted to see if I could learn why, and came here after reading several articles and not finding answers. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with BDD, this is a valid question which does not require debate. I too wpould like to know the answer. Has there been any recent civil unrest in Macau? Please open the question again. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reopened it on condition we stick to the guidelines and discuss RS. This is a reference desk.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

From very long professional experience in both, my personal view is that Macau people get agitated more about economic issues -- employment, inflation -- than political ones, and that in Hong Kong the steady erosion of political rights (assured by the Basic Law but cannot be guaranteed by the local government) has become the main bone of contention. Hong Kong has many economic issues, but these are not the main drivers of dissent in this decade.DOR (HK) (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is valuable, of course, but I'm trying to keep this to WP:RS simply because I'm trying to avoid debate, and sticking with pointing the OP to pages where they can learn more.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * A little out of date but see: Why Macau is less demanding of democracy than Hong Kong (Sep 2017) from The Economist, which I think is a Reliable Source. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks both, that's very helpful! --BDD (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Note that the UK has a much longer history of democracy, with roots dating back to 1215, while Portugal has been democratic for far less time (the Carnation Revolution of 1974 and subsequent National Salvation Junta through 1976 being the last non-democratic events). So, one would expect that to have an effect on those raised in their colonies, with those in former British colonies viewing democracy as the best and most stable form of government, while those in former Portuguese colonies regard it as only one possibility, and not necessarily the best one. See Portuguese transition to democracy. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's plainly British chauvanism. Even if we take the start of the British constitutional monarchy to be the Magna Carta (and most serious historians only date it to the Glorious Revolution, so you're off by half a millenium or so), Portugal had a modern constitutional monarchy back to the Portuguese Constitution of 1822, not 1974.  Also, it should be noted that the idea that absolutism existed from the earliest monarchies is also not true.  In Europe, the notion of the Divine right of kings and absolutism as a coherent political philosophy certainly no earlier than the late 16th century and early 17th centuries (Henry VIII of England, James VI of Scotland, i.e. The True Law of Free Monarchies, Louis XIV of France etc.).  Prior to that time period, Kings had ruled in conjunction with their legislatures for centuries, the Estates General of France dates to at least 1302, which would was only 7 years after the Model Parliament in England.  Portugal, for the record, had their own similar body, the Cortes-Gerais, which was first called in 1254, some 51 years before England's first Parliament.  Indeed, most European monarchies were creating their first parliaments in around the same time period (late 13th to early 14th century) and there were, yet again, earlier bodies that served similar roles (Anglo-Saxon England had the Witenagemot for example, and Germanic societies had Things dating back hundreds of years before that.  Kings (at least the good ones) had long ruled in conjunction with elected (usually aristocratically elected, but none-the-less representative of a fashion) assemblies and had been constrained by constitutional principles (usually traditional rights of nobility and the like, but still constrained in their rights) since forever.  The idea that Britain somehow was blessed by an earlier and more well-developed introduction to democracy is wrong on two counts; in the first case it wasn't really democracy in any modern sense of the concept, and secondly insofar as it had any scent of democracy on it, it largely happened at the same time as other European societies implemented the same general ideas, at around the same place. I wasn't aware that Whig history was still hanging on, but it apparently is.  -- Jayron 32 02:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The medieval history lesson aside, the recent history of the UK is more democratic than Portugal. And it is that recent history which would be absorbed by students in those colonies. A student in 1975 Macau wouldn't have had much of an example from Portugal to put his faith in democracy. That student would be about 60 now, old enough to be in a leadership role in Macau. SinisterLefty (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You brought up, 1215, not me. If you had only wanted to discuss the state of affairs in the 1970s, you perhaps should have not done so.  -- Jayron 32 14:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are also these sources [//www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-25/why-macau-hasnt-been-swept-up-by-hong-kong-protests/11432804] [//time.com/5688967/macau-hong-kong-protests/] [//www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/hong-kong-protests-stir-questions-macau] [//www.dw.com/en/a-democracy-referendum-for-macau/a-17870453]. This [//www.jstor.org/stable/656044] from the time of Macau handover may also be of interest. Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)