uk – Houghton STAR

Hong Kong has a long and unique history. After the First Opium War (1839-1842), the British Empire and China signed the Treaty of Nanking, ceding dominion of Hong Kong to the British. Roughly fifty years later, Britain and China signed the Second Convention of Peking, effectively leasing the UK the territory for 99 years without fee. Acknowledging Japanese occupation during World War II, the UK retained control for the given amount of time, relinquishing power over Hong Kong back to the Chinese government in 1997. Since then, Hong Kong has experienced much turmoil concerning its political relationship with the Communist Party.

As it currently stands, Hong Kong is governed by three branches of government as outlined in their constitution, The Basic Law: a judicial structure — which is not so controversial; a legislative council of 70 members, of whom 40 are directly elected (which has caused much anger); and the controversial executive branch. The lead official in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (as termed by China) is the Chief Executive Officer. Currently, the selection of the Chief Executive is an action performed by an electoral-college-style committee of 1200 members. This committee is, according to critics, an instrument of Beijing, inflicting the will of the Party upon the supposedly separate territory.

In response to a recent wave of criticism calling for democratic elections of all elected officials in the Region, China has responded with a concession – they will allow the direct election of the Chief Executive by all legal adult voters by 2017. However, they said, a nomination committee made of members from the previous “electoral” committee would handpick the candidates. This small deviation from a more true democratic process, is what has garnered so much rage.

On September 22, 2014, a group of university students flooded the streets declaring a week-long boycott of all classes in response to the decision from Beijing. Six days later, an existing protest movement named Occupy Central With Peace and Love, which had been planning a protest anyway, decided to jump into the wave of momentum with the students, which added significant numbers to the crowds in the streets.

Initially a nonviolent campaign organized as a social protest, Occupy Central With Peace and Love was largely ignored by the city and its officials. Soon after, however, the protest stretched into its second and third weeks, with camps of students and other angry civilians blocking the entrances to major government buildings in certain neighborhoods of Hong Kong. By October 2, the current Chief Executive had given up, offering his resignation – which the student leaders later accepted. The protesters erected barricades to block traffic and a large number have set up temporary camps in the streets and parks around Hong Kong’s central district. In recent days, police have worked to take down the barriers, work which has only led to significant clashes between the city workforce and the protesters. More than 50 people have already been injured in the alterations between police and workers and the protesting students and citizens.

On Tuesday October 12, 2014, five student leaders, wearing t-shirts that read “freedom now” met with officials from the government. Early reports have said that nothing much was accomplished, terms were offered and denied. The students have a goal they are unwilling to relinquish. For now they will go on, garnering the support of activists from China (many from Tiananmen Square), Russian, Serbia, and other nations around the world. Committed to meeting with the representatives again, both parties are hopeful but determined to reach a conclusion.

Over the last few weeks a few of my friends on “The Facebook” have posted an article from The Atlantic entitled “The Overprotected Kid” by Hanna Rosin.

The article centers on “playgrounds” in North Wales, UK that are essentially a junk heap of objects that children can play in. The idea is that if children are able to tackle seemingly dangerous scenarios (building forts, lighting fires, etc.) they will better understand the mechanics of such things and gain confidence. The article’s tagline states, “A preoccupation with safety has stripped childhood of independence, risk taking, and discovery—without making it safer. A new kind of playground points to a better solution.”

Unsurprisingly the article has gained some attention and thus I see it posted by varying groups of my Facebook friends. Being at an age (25) where I have friends both still in college and reaching well into adulthood I have an opportunity to see decades of opinions. And, consequently, I see and hear a lot on the topic of “parenting techniques.”

And parenting techniques, quite frankly, baffle me. The easy argument would be: I am not a parent. But more than that the topic seeps into a greater world view that I just don’t understand.

Having a “parenting technique” seems to be something new since I was a child. A quick guess would be that this has to do with technology. In the same way that teenage girls take 100 selfies to get just the right one, mothers and fathers are saving those sunlit living room photos for the next blog post on whatever Christian or Hipster website they blog through. And every other parent is reading it and seeing their inferiority. So they, and consequently all of us, overanalyze everything.

And it drives me crazy.

I just don’t believe that my parents (or generations before them) had a “technique” in raising us. OF COURSE they had rights and wrongs. There was a reason my parents did not homeschool us, that we attended cultural events regularly, that we were not allowed to watch TV every day or allowed to talk back. But I think my parents saw that as something they dealt with as it came- knowing they wanted to instill good moral values and respectful children. What I see now is a crazed attempt to plan a perfect child who grows into a depression-and-anxiety-free adult.

So back to the article. A playground where children can play with stuff and light fires with minimal supervision.

Sure, fine. Except I don’t understand why it is necessary for so many of the folks who posted this article.

The article focuses on a middle-class populated area. There really isn’t space for kids to “spread their wings.” Instead the crappy alternative is a pile of junk. Scraps and trash litter the floor, rotting couches strewn in the photos. This might be the sad alternative to those kids but my friends posting it are from rural West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and even here.

So I find myself baffled and frustrated. Frustrated because I think if we stopped overanalyzing things and let things happen we would end up with kids who love the outdoors and express empathy for fellow human beings. Baffled because I can’t imagine a parent who thinks putting their children in a caged area with controlled fire is a better courage builder than exploring the woods or making a friend from a different social, economic, or racial background.

There are things to worry about. OF COURSE THERE ARE. Kidnapping is terrifying and so is hitting your head. But as the article points out- that stuff has not stopped since we began over-analyzing and implementing these “parenting techniques.”

It makes me so grateful for my childhood and how I was raised. My parents both worked, we all went to public school in a poor area. We were bound to do stupid things and get knocked around a bit. I had well-educated interesting GOOD parents and a stable home. But not everyone around me did and so I inherited some of those bruises too which I count only as good.

When he was 8 my parents bought my brother a hatchet-yes A HATCHET. He and his friends would go into the woods by themselves to hack away at old logs. My sister, being our extrovert, would join with masses of bored teenagers in the evenings looking for things to do.

We were expected to call if we were going to miss dinner and to do well in school. We were expected to sit quietly in church and concerts. My parents were stringent but we were allowed to explore our world as best we could.

And perhaps more importantly than the freedom given us in our own backyard was the freedom given us with our friends. Occasionally our parents would question the quality of a person of interest but generally they respected our judgment.

I learned as much in the broken-down trailers and smoke-filled homes of my friends as I have anywhere. I learned of my privilege. I learned to help out in scary situations and how to cope. I learned that kids with reduced lunches had them for a reason. I learned that fathers that were scary went hand-in-hand with mothers that were frightened and much of my classmate’s life would be spent trying to gingerly navigate that. I learned that poverty and hungry and fear and neglect and abuse were all rolled into a crazy cycle.

I am surprised that these kinds of risks are not mentioned in this article since I see them wrapped into the same kind of over-protection it’s talking about. And I see it wrapped in the same kinds of “parenting techniques.”

I know these things are risky. There is really horrible stuff that can happen. But freedom to explore, befriend and fumble creates fiber, embeds humanity and opens eyes. Just like we need exposure to antibodies to create immunities we need experience to grabble with life.

Often people say “when you have kids you will understand.” And maybe that’s part of the problem, this belief that our kid somehow has a chance to be THE BEST EVER. I just hope if that day ever comes I can take a breath, hand over a bag of gluten-free vegan kale chips, and tell my kid to come back before it gets dark. Oh – and no fire, just no.