What these other splendid bastards have said. You’ve missed the point friend. You’re seeing the result and not the process or the cause.
The BBC used to be a jewel in the UK’s public services crown. Now it’s been corrupted and starved; and you want to level the blame at its feet?
I have no horse in the colonial race.
But you do, your post history is entirely pro China. Each article you’ve chosen is limited in scope, looks at only small details; whereas I’m coming at this from a contextual point of view. Why are you trying to pretend you haven’t cherry picked your references to suit your political leanings? It’s baffling.
Also, Marxist-Leninist fits, thanks for your honesty. I’m with Lenin, up until he calls for a continuous revolution against all political opponents: that’s the point at which a righteous revolution turns into tyranny.
From my point of view, colonialism regardless of the flavour of it, serves only to impoverish and destroy the lives of a large number of working people. Its the opposite of what true communism should look like.
Despite this, I actually gave China a tiny bit more credit because at least they’re building infrastructure, the USA wouldn’t have done that historically. Even if that infrastructure is a debt slavery trap.
You’re welcome to think of me as loving the USA though. From where I’m sitting tonight that’s given me such a chuckle.
All your links are media arms of the Chinese government.
All of your points are quite literally Chinese governmental talking points with no nuance and no analysis from any point of view that isn’t pro-China.
And you call my post projection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative
Much like America’s more usual approach, it’s softer colonialism than what the Brits did.
The difference this time around though is the building of infrastructure. America didn’t do as much of that during its rise or prime. That said, it’s often just another way to get the nation indebted to China, it’s not like they’re building the projects for free and often enough the debt is more than the country in question’s economy can handle.
Colonialism is colonialism afterall.
This method is built on political manoeuvring behind the scenes through intelligence assets and corruption with infrastructural incentives masking debt slavery out in the open.
Here’s the list you asked for:
Angola, DRC, Zambia, Sudan, Mozambique, Gabon, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Pakistan Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Iraq and Iran.
The only downside is living in a universe that has the Borg. They are existential terror incarnate.
That said, they seem to always get defeated one way or another. Just make sure you live in a major federation star system and you’re golden.
Agreed. Although with the caveat that, had there been more stringent regulations surrounding misinformation and manipulation in political and media discourse for the UK, Brexit would never have been able to occur. Leave got there (and only just) through a multitude of lies and emotional manipulation.
Direct democracy is the ideal end goal of any democratic system. But for it to work, people need to be educated, healthy, stable, and both interested and invested in the political process.
We’ve a lot of ground to cover between then and now.
Yeah my bad, my math was off and wasn’t looking at it across the multiple years. Makes sense. Cheers mate.
That slight raise is arguably relatively normal-ish variation. It probably represents the problems with capitalist lack of social care and resources to some degree. But 99.99% of people are still eating.
It’s still bad, it’s still unacceptable, it’s still ridiculous for a wealthy nation and shouldn’t happen, but it’s also not huge, it’s a tiny fraction.
To parse the math, if it keeps rising that would be concerning. But look at the scale… that “3” That the USA reaches isn’t percent. It represents circa 1 in 33,000 people which equates to about 10,000 people in the entire USA.
Whereas according to the same source, North Korea’s famine produced at least 450 sufferers every 100,000. That, represented 1 in 222 people.
Weirdly this actually doesn’t tally with a lot of other sources. So I’m left scratching my head about it somewhat. The above reference suggests only 100,000 people suffered from the famine in North Korea yet, the minimum other sources put as having died in said famine is 360,000 and the maximum of 2,000,000.
Am I missing something? This does not compute.
Edit: Ah the context I was missing was the famine occurred over multiple years. Each year was 420 per 100,000 or below out of 20 million.
Yeah but my point is that isn’t the BBC’s fault. It’s the governments we’ve had.
If we had an anti-authoritarian liberal government willing to give freedoms rather than take them away, they could start to fill the BBC with people who think likewise.
That would then reflect in the type of reporting.