246
CARL SMITH
This was especially evident in editorial comments on the deputation appearing in the China Mail and the Hongkong Telegraph. The 1883 deputation called to mind the clash of Chinese and European interests at the 1878 meeting which we discussed in previous articles. Now, as then, Ho A-mei was quick to speak out to present the case for the Chinese.
In future articles we shall discuss more fully the issues provoked by the 1883 deputation, but first an examination of the editorial views of the two newspapers will link 1878 with 1883. In addition they illustrate a type of colourful journalism now not considered respectable.
The day after the Chinese met the Acting Governor the editor of the China Mail praised the deputation. He described it as "one of the most significant demonstrations of the kind made by the native community for many years past. It was unique in more ways than one - in its initiation, in its aims, and in its character.”
He then proceeded to view it in the light of previous dealings of Chinese with the Government, using expressions which reflected the patronising and hostile attitudes towards Chinese among expatriates in Hongkong in those days. He noted: "We have of late years been accustomed to one of two things in native demonstrations - either feeble protests against interference with so-called Chinese usages, linked to blatant blustering against European residents: or fulsome adulation of the Executive got up at the bidding of the head of the Government and meaning nothing.
"Petition-signing and deputation-making during the last administration, not only were reduced to a mockery, but they became a scandal and a disgrace.”
By contrast, the editorial described the deputation to Marsh as being purely voluntary with no one manipulating it in the background.
The editor referred to remarks made at the banquet given for Governor Hennessy by the Chinese at the time of his departure. On that occasion the question of getting the views of Chinese on
246
CARL SMITH
This was especially evident in editorial comments on the depu- tation appearing in the China Mail and the Hongkong Telegraph. The 1883 deputation called to mind the clash of Chinese and European interests at the 1878 meeting which we discussed in previous articles. Now, as then, Ho A-mei was quick to speak out to present the case for the Chinese.
In future articles we shall discuss more fully the issues pro- voked by the 1883 deputation, but first an examination of the editorial views of the two newspapers will link 1878 with 1883. In addition they illustrate a type of colourful journalism now not considered respectable.
The day after the Chinese met the Acting Governor the editor of the China Mail praised the deputation. He described it as "one of the most significant demonstrations of the kind made by the native community for many years past. It was unique in more ways than one - in its initiation, in its aims, and in its character.”
He then proceeded to view it in the light of previous dealings of Chinese with the Government, using expressions which reflected the patronising and hostile attitudes towards Chinese among ex- patriates in Hongkong in those days. He noted: "We have of late years been accustomed to one of two things in native demonstra- tions either feeble protests against interference with so-called Chinese usages, linked to blatant blustering against European resi- dents: or fulsome adulation of the Executive got up at the bidding of the head of the Government and meaning nothing.
"Petition-signing and deputation-making during the last ad- ministration, not only were reduced to a mockery, but they be- came a scandal and a disgrace.”
By contrast, the editorial described the deputation to Marsh as being purely voluntary with no one manipulating it in the back- ground.
The editor referred to remarks made at the banquet given for Governor Hennessy by the Chinese at the time of his departure. On that occasion the question of getting the views of Chinese on
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.