Basically democracies. It is kind of difficult to consider non-democratic dictators like Putin or Kim Jong-un as representatives of some kind of “community”.
They’re only dictators in our minds, because the West has told us they are for years. I’ve always wondered what’s really behind their strategy, but we can’t get unbiased news about their countries and the people living there anymore.
It’s really interesting to me because they are dictators, they’re also the only countries that managed to give the big finger to the US’ meddling and disrupting regional politics. Did they become dictators to stop that or is it a chicken and the egg situation? Need more info.
Current Africa is the fault of British and French. Current Middle East the fault of British, French and the USA. Current India has strong feelings against the British. Current Iran has a strong theocracy because of the USA. Current South America still feels the effects of the USA’s CIA’s meddling.
Of course it is your oil-and-war-industry-mirror governments. It has been an entity whose sole focus has been war profiteering and thus warmongering at least since the WW2, no matter how democratically(!) you choose your presidents. Your warmongering government doesn’t even care about its citizens (see healthcare, gun laws, abortion laws, lgbt laws, online and other privacy rights, etc.). Your whole nationwide and even international media is a public opinion shaping and damage control asset for the government.
What the fuck do you expect to hear from other people, who have been direct or indirect victims of your warmongering and coups, to say about this? Tell you that is is so known a fact that we can practically ignore it at this point and carry on with our lives? Problem is, unless you stop, we can’t even carry on with our lives.
Are they only dictators in our minds or are they dictators? You don’t seem to be sure.
Yes I’m not sure, only in the sense that I’ve seen what happens when you kill a dictator and try to replace it with ‘democracy.’
Everyone swoops in, hires some armed forces to get the natural resources they need and then leaves. The population is left to fend themselves and are usually governed for decades by the stronger mostly extremist government party. By the time they revolt, they get beat down again and again, until they just give up and the country descends into another humanitarian crisis.
It just sets them back for decades. That’s all.
What an odd coincidence that primarily white, English-speaking countries have democracy.
Nothing odd about it. There are historical reasons for that. But English speaking? You do know that there are many countries in EU?
Latin America and India doesn’t count because they are full of brown people, right?
You know the vast majority of south and central americas are democracies too, right?
South America just isn’t really too involved in international politics in general, the whole region is neutral in almost all conflicts since very few directly affect them
They are involved in their own politics, just like the first world only cares about what happens to the first world.
Of course. I am not going to defend the particular choice of countries in that picture. Where is South Korea, for example? However. Democracy is greater than just democratic election. Fascists in Germany also come to power in a free democratic election, does not make Nazi Germany a democratic country.
Never realized South Korea, Taiwan, or other SEA countries are not democracies but dictatorships.
Ah yes Brazil, beacon of freedom, like the freedom to shoot some slum kid in the face for the crime of being a slum rat.
Brazil makes the USA seem like the fucking beacon of freedom and equality that the fucking G.I. Joe cartoons portray it as.
I don’t know about US but EU has a bunch of news agencies that are fairly credible. Some local smaller ones don’t have a reason not to be.
The international community in the picture is all that matters. Change the size of the countries in the map by the size of their economies and that’s all that matters. Change it by the factor of their diplomatic influence and the change would be even greater.
If you ever talk about an international community, these are the only countries that actually COMMUNE. Almost all the rest are too involved with themselves to have a diplomatic strategy beyond their narrow short-term self interest. That’s also why that’s the only international community that matters. That’s not a tone deaf world view, that’s the reality.
No, these are the only countries that destabilised entire continents to get what they wanted in the last few centuries and now they wash their hands off of them. The countries that are left behind are still trying to clean the shit up the West has created.
You mean the only ones you hear about communing as a westerner. Pretty much every geographical region has political and economic collaborative institutions for long term stability and growth, and then there’s also things like BRICS that’s not just bound by geography. The BRI is a plan so incredibly long term election-based democracies could never even dream of it, that spans East, Central and West Asia, and is economic, political, social, infrastructural etc etc. Just because you never bothered to broaden your horizon doesn’t mean the entire fucking rest of the world doesn’t collaborate with each other just like Europe and western countries in general do.
The EU news is real bare bones, that’s why you get the feeling they’re credible. They only parrot what someone else wrote already. Please put your Google Translate on and look at news sites from countries outside your country or region. And then make up your own mind. It’s the only way to evolve yourself.
You don’t know WTF you’re talking about and it shows. You obviously have no formal training in journalism or mass communications, but here you are spouting off like the self-appointed armchair “expert” you are. Just consuming news doesn’t make you an expert; it makes you a consumer with a poorly-informed opinion. Again, you obviously have no idea how any of this works.
You are very wrong. Each country in EU has its own news agencies and many of them have reporters all over the world, even in conflict zones. It is simply not possible to push narratives through such an amount of channels, like they do in the US. Of course some news gets parotted, that’s how news works, but a Slovenian reporter, reporting from Ukraine doesn’t care what NYT said about anything.
I don’t know, I read European news sites first and there really is less debt to them than other sources. Or it’s just a few paragraphs without the background or history etc… I have to admit, the last few years some have mitigated this by doing more research, filing it under ‘dossiers’ and I really like their fact checking. But maybe you’re right and they can’t put everything out there.
The picture is showing most of the Global North (no Russia and China), which is The West. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South
The international community in the picture is all that matters.
And is that a problem? I’m asking you a moral question.
‘Western’ media is known in the outside world to report the horrific truth AFTER a war has ended. Or they just wait until enough people make a stink about it, look at Ukraine in their second war.
Just look at what happened in the Bosnian war, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, Africa, Asia… And the atrocities committed there were systematically underreported. Sure, they’ll write a few uninspired paragraphs about it and move on.
I’m not saying Eastern media isn’t biased, they report more emotional so you have to filter that out. And it’s an active war, so they might get some misinformation. But over the years they proved to be more often than not right after everything’s done. (Looking at you Srebrenica and all the US wars).
Then the Western media swoops in and makes some documentaries about facts most people with a satellite dish or a second language already knew. Thoughts and Prayers.
After the Ukrainian war started this changed. It’s the first time everybody and their mother can follow the war while it’s happening.
Now it’s happening again in Gaza, but journalists are getting killed en masse because the other side knows about it.
I really recommend everyone to read and watch different sources from different countries/languages and make up their own mind. There’s Google translate if you can’t speak several languages.
I don’t know what news you read but what you’re saying is wrong - there definitely has been extensive news coverage on all the wars and conflicts you mentioned, it’s just a matter of reading them.
For christ sake Bosnian war was ended by the west when the public pressure to stop a literal genocide grew too large, the massacre of Srebrenica being a massive catalyst to it. How “eastern media” was suddenly more right about it than western sources who actually were there is a point I either misunderstand or, more likely, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Also calling eastern media “more emotional” has that little subtle bit of racism, really putting the irony as the icing on this horrible comment.
There are many reasons to read all media with the assumption that it is biased but this isn’t it.
Also calling eastern media “more emotional” has that little subtle bit of racism, really putting the irony as the icing on this horrible comment.
Yup. Calling Eastern media emotional when Western media is just as bad with sensationalism, especially American news.
the first time everybody and their mother can follow the war while it’s happening
You’re thinking of the Gulf War. The invasion of Iraq was literally televised (almost) live everywhere on the world. Vietnam also had an extremely high reporting rate which contributed to the anti-war protests and movement in the US and the eventual withdrawal.
Also, targeting journalist to kill them is an old-time tradition amongst war criminals ever since the journalist profession was defined in the like XVII century.
What do you think “international” means?
I guess I should be less surprised how this meme is sailing over people’s heads in here
