non-Anglo societies more free from political-correctness.

[problems@gmail]

As an european [unfortunate to be] living in Africa, I want to complement
radio netherlands on their openness which apparently comes from their
national character.

The reporter [from Uganda/Kenya] took the trouble to explain that
when 'the natives say "I am hungry" ', they are not suggesting that
eating will solve their perceived complaint. Rather they are
expressing a general dissatisfaction at their economic situation.

Here in southern africa, they would all say "I'm suffering", no matter
what tribe/language they originate from.

We know that different 'cultures' recognise certain colours which
other cutures don't. Similarly, I speculate that the africans don't have
distinct concepts for 'suffering', 'hungry', 'dissatisfied'.

This would not be such a problem, if eg. the BBC reporters, like the
radio-netherland ones, would make the essential translation.
Apparently the BBC thinks this would be politically incorrect.

Related to PeeCee reporting, when I read from the BBC's web-page:
> Gerarda and her ten children live in searing poverty
I don't know whether the reporter:
a) is tongue-in-cheek;
b) is so damned stupid that S/HE too doesn't know that "searing
poverty" follows inevitably from "her ten children";
it's like reporting that 'the cat was dead AND it wasn't breathing';
c) is obeying some PeeCee code which I'm unaware of.

[Stan Pierce]

<problems@gmail> wrote in message news:12104165...@vasbyt.isdsl.net...

Yes. Good point. The code is underwritten by assuming victim status of
everyone they interview. The BBC now represents 'victims' as a policy so
their language use will always have that nuance. To the BBC no-one is
responsible for themselves and the misery they get into.