 You have direct violence, say for example, where the United States intervened militarily several times in the Caribbean, in Cuba, in Haiti, in Grenada. And then you had Great Britain intervening in the socialist experiment in Guyana and their own destabilization there after a democratically elected leader. And so that is that is sort of direct violence, right? And then structural violence is the way the world is sort of the world economy is set up now. You find that the richer countries and they're rich from colonialism, right? And you find that there's a continuation. I call it neocoloniality, right? So it is a very it's sort of it's not the same direct violence as colonialism where you have slavery and people being whipped and the use of direct violence. And forcing them to work on plantations. But you find that the way the global economy is set up, it is sort of it's sort of still slanted towards the richer countries. And so going back to my first argument, you see that Caribbean countries, smaller economies, they are feeling the greater brunt of global climate change. You find the richer countries, they're putting out more carbon emissions. And who's going to suffer more? The countries that are poorer. And so that to me, that is an extension of the colonial era where you have sort of an imbalance, right? Between exploitation from richer countries and then poorer countries feeling the brunt. And that's why I framed my argument about global climate change being structurally violent. And to me, that's an extension of colonialism. So it's neocolonialism as regards global climate change.