Facts are merely incidental. Only interpretation matters.
In the classrooms of Hong Kong, a quiet but profound transformation is underway — one measured not in protests or legislation, but in the pages given to children. New middle school textbooks now declare that Hong Kong was never a British colony, only temporarily occupied, reframing 156 years of documented history as a mere interruption in an eternal Chinese story. The revision follows the 2019 democracy protests and Beijing's subsequent tightening of control, and it reflects a truth older than any single government: that those who shape what the young are taught shape, in time, what a people believe they are.
- Four separate sets of new textbooks, all carrying the same claim, are being distributed to Hong Kong schools — erasing colonial status from the historical record entirely.
- The overhaul follows the 2019 pro-democracy protests, in which students were central figures, and directly replaces liberal studies classes that once encouraged critical thinking.
- Beijing's reframing is not new — as far back as 1972, China successfully had Hong Kong removed from the UN's list of colonial territories, laying the groundwork for today's classroom narrative.
- The National Security Law of 2020, National Security Education Day, and the banning of Tiananmen commemorations form a coordinated architecture of historical erasure around the textbook changes.
- Scholars warn that under Xi Jinping's approach, facts are treated as incidental — only the Party's interpretation of history is permitted, and that interpretation is now being handed to children as truth.
Hong Kong's schools are preparing to teach a version of history that contradicts 150 years of documented record. New middle school textbooks declare that Hong Kong was never a British colony — only occupied while remaining eternally Chinese territory. Four separate textbook sets, all making the same claim, are being offered to replace existing materials.
The historical record is unambiguous: Hong Kong became a British colony in 1841 following the first Opium War, remained under British rule for 156 years, and was returned to China in 1997 under a "one country, two systems" framework codified in a Sino-British Joint Declaration registered with the United Nations — an agreement Beijing now refuses to recognize. China's Communist government has long dismissed the 19th-century treaties as "unequal," and as early as 1972 successfully had Hong Kong removed from the UN's list of colonial territories, stripping it of any formal claim to self-determination.
The timing of the curriculum overhaul is telling. It follows the 2019 pro-democracy protests, in which students played prominent roles, and replaces liberal studies classes that had encouraged civic engagement and critical thought. The new curriculum emphasizes patriotism, national identity, and national security. The 2019 protests are framed in the textbooks as the product of foreign interference — the same justification Beijing used to pass the sweeping National Security Law in 2020, which criminalized political opposition and curtailed free speech. Schools now observe a National Security Education Day each April.
The broader pattern is one of institutional alignment with mainland values. Public commemorations of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown have been banned. As one scholar of Chinese politics put it, under Xi Jinping's approach, facts are merely incidental — only interpretation matters, and only one interpretation is permitted.
For Hong Kong's students, the consequence is stark: they will graduate having learned an official history that contradicts international treaties, documented fact, and the living memory of their own families — not as an error, but as a deliberate act of political erasure.
Hong Kong's schools are about to teach a version of history that erases more than 150 years of documented fact. Beginning this year, new middle school textbooks will tell students that Hong Kong was never actually a British colony—merely occupied by Britain while remaining eternally Chinese territory. One textbook examined by the Associated Press states it plainly: "Hong Kong has been Chinese territory since ancient times. While Hong Kong was occupied by the British following the Opium War, it remained Chinese territory." Four separate textbook sets, all making the same claim, are being offered to schools to replace the ones currently in classrooms.
The historical record tells a different story. Hong Kong became a British colony in 1841 following the first Opium War, and remained under British rule for 156 years until 1997, with the exception of Japanese occupation during World War II. The colonial arrangement was formalized through 19th-century treaties signed after military defeats, and expanded in 1898 when Britain secured a 99-year lease on the New Territories. China's Communist government, which came to power in 1949, has long refused to acknowledge these agreements, dismissing them as "unequal treaties" imposed on a weakened Qing Dynasty. When the lease on the New Territories approached expiration in the 1980s, Britain and China negotiated Hong Kong's return. In 1997, the handover occurred under a "one country, two systems" framework meant to preserve Hong Kong's distinct economic, political, and judicial systems for fifty years—an arrangement codified in a 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration registered with the United Nations, though Beijing now refuses to recognize that agreement.
This is not Beijing's first attempt to rewrite this history. In 1972, shortly after China reclaimed its UN seat, the government successfully removed Hong Kong and Macao from the UN's list of colonial territories, effectively stripping them of any claim to self-determination. At the time, China's UN representative argued that the status of these territories fell entirely within China's sovereign right and bore no resemblance to ordinary colonial situations. The move reflected Mao Zedong's determination to ensure Hong Kong would eventually return to Chinese control—a goal achieved, though the path taken was through negotiation rather than the unilateral assertion now being made in textbooks.
The timing of the new curriculum reveals its true purpose. The textbook overhaul follows the massive pro-democracy protests of 2019, during which students played prominent roles in demonstrations and leadership. Hong Kong's government responded by overhauling the liberal studies classes that had previously encouraged critical thinking and civic engagement. The revamped curriculum now emphasizes national security, patriotism, and national identity. The textbooks themselves frame the 2019 protest movement as a product of foreign interference and a threat to national security—a narrative Beijing used to justify the sweeping National Security Law passed in 2020, which curtailed free speech, restricted criticism of authorities, and criminalized political opposition. Schools now observe a National Security Education Day on April 15, with students encouraged to participate in activities stressing the importance of protecting China.
What's unfolding in Hong Kong's classrooms is part of a broader effort to align the territory's institutions and values with those of mainland China. Xi Jinping's vision for the region is one of intensified nationalism and centralized authoritarian control. The government has already moved to erase other inconvenient historical memories—citing pandemic concerns to ban the massive public commemorations that once marked June 4, the anniversary of the 1989 military suppression of student protests at Tiananmen Square. Steve Tsang, a Chinese politics specialist at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, describes the approach plainly: "The Communist Party has a monopoly of the truth and history in China. In the Xi approach to history, facts are merely incidental. Only interpretation matters. And only one interpretation is allowed."
For Hong Kong's students, the message is clear. They will graduate having learned an official version of their own city's past that contradicts the historical record, international treaties, and the lived experience of their grandparents. The textbooks represent not a correction of history but a deliberate erasure—one that serves a political purpose: to sever Hong Kong's connection to its recent past and bind it more tightly to Beijing's vision of a unified, compliant China.
Notable Quotes
The Communist Party has a monopoly of the truth and history in China. In the Xi approach to history, facts are merely incidental. Only interpretation matters. And only one interpretation is allowed.— Steve Tsang, Chinese politics specialist at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Beijing care so much about how Hong Kong teaches its own history? The handover happened in 1997. Isn't that settled?
Because history is how people understand who they are and what they're entitled to. If Hong Kong was a colony, it had a colonial experience—different laws, different governance, a different relationship to power. That shapes how people think about their rights.
But the textbooks say it was "occupied" but still Chinese. Isn't that a compromise?
It's not a compromise at all. It's a denial. Occupation is temporary; colonization is a system. By calling it occupation, they're saying Britain had no legitimate claim, no legal standing, no right to be there. It erases the entire institutional history.
Why now, though? Why not do this in 1997 when they took over?
Because in 1997, there was still the "one country, two systems" promise. Hong Kong was supposed to keep its own systems. But after 2019, when students led massive protests demanding democracy, Beijing decided that promise was a liability. They needed to rewrite the story so Hong Kong's students wouldn't think they had ever been entitled to something different.
So this is about the 2019 protests?
It's about what the protests revealed—that a generation of Hong Kong people saw themselves as distinct from mainland China, with rights that came from their own history. Beijing is trying to erase that sense of distinction before it spreads further.