Whether a non-profit organization, an emerging nation, or any people group there seems to be a collective soul that forms, and through the environments, experiences, and influences that soul is formed in, an identity emerges. I was reminded of this emergence and learned more of the circumstances and factors that play into it as I read A Modern History of Hong Kong<\/u> by Steve Tsang. I found similarities to an individual\u2019s journey in self-discovery and awareness, integration and confidence, and the desire and struggle toward differentiation and independence. In the case of Hong Kong this identity was initiated and formed through the conflict of two nations and their own sense of self-importance as great empires.<\/p>\n
It is interesting to consider how progress often pushes us toward conflict and conquer rather than advancing in goodwill and betterment for all in a unified effort. As seen with the development of Hong Kong through the First Anglo-Chinese War, Tsang credits the Industrial Revolution with being the \u201cmost fundamental change, which brought confrontation closer than ever.\u201d[1]<\/a> Though this very progress was enabling greater development in the economy, communication, technologies and organizational capacities, it also erected empires of conquest for personal gain. This caused me to ponder the irony of words as defined in the English language specifically, \u201crevolution.\u201d One definition is \u201ca forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system\u201d while another is \u201cthe movement of an object in a circular or elliptical course around another.\u201d[2]<\/a> These two very different meanings have even a contrasting feel in nature. One is with force to overpower a system, the other is two objects coordinating around each other in a circular motion as in the solar system. The identity of a person or a collective soul is much like these definitions of a \u201crevolution.\u201d<\/p>\n Identity seems to have an ebb and flow through years of change which was true of the emergence of Hong Kong\u2019s coming into itself. There certainly are building blocks in a person just as a people group, and for Hong Kong, Tsang attributes much to the British legacies particularly the systems that established a rule of law providing fundamental \u201cprotection and advancement of the rights and dignity of the individual.\u201d[3]<\/a> This way of life establishes a sense of order creating the boundaries in which a society can thrive. The civil service and police force were also credited as the basis of stability. Each of these three create a sort of skeletal system, a coordinating solar system providing a safe space that allows the moments of forcible overthrow to be experimented with when people feel oppressed or fearful, when identity is emerging through struggle and resistance.<\/p>\n For Hong Kong, as with individuals, leadership influence within and without became a significant factor to its identity emergence. Leaders throughout the process were often portrayed as more concerned about their own legacies than what was best for the people of Hong Kong. \u00a0The first to seemingly be sympathetic to this need and voice for an identity was Governor Young in the 1940\u2019s, and though his influence was short lived, identity did begin to emerge. It was almost twenty years before the people seemed to recognize their ability to reflect on who they were and what their identity would be and this through force<\/em> between Communist China and the British way of life.[4]<\/a> At other moments in their emergence process we see the revolution of coordination as the people began to converge their Chinese culture with the British influences. This concept was eventually the agreed upon outcome of the 1997 transfer of sovereignty, \u201cone country, two systems.\u201d[5]<\/a> Significant forcible incidents such as the Tiananmen Square protest movement also had indelible marks upon the Hong Kong identity formation.[6]<\/a> Tsang\u2019s last chapter is entitled, \u201cFull Circle?\u201d bringing us back to the idea of revolution as circular orbit returning to its origin and describes Hong Kong\u2019s retrocession.<\/p>\n Whether by forcible circumstances and pressures or coordinated and cooperating orbit, identity is formed through large and small revolutions both of the individual and collective soul of a people over a long period of time. This is certainly true for the Crown Colony of Hong Kong.<\/p>\n <\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 [1] Steve Tsang, A Modern History of Hong Kong <\/em>(New York: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2004), 2.<\/p>\n <\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 [2] https:\/\/en.oxforddictionaries.com\/definition\/revolution<\/a><\/p>\n <\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 [3] Tsang, 268.<\/p>\n <\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 [4] Ibid, 189.<\/a><\/p>\n