• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is "third world country" a demeaning term?

Iamme

Philosopher
I
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
Messages
6,215
We no longer live in the dark ages. People world-wide know what we say. They know how we live, and they know of our opinions. Doesn't the term (of this thread) sound like we are up here (raising my hand over my head), while they are down there (putting my hand down as far as it can hang)?

Or, is your attitude one of "so what". We are right. They are wrong. We will do as we please. Who is going to stop us. We can't help it if we are the supreme power of the world, while they are a bunch of goat herders, or whatever. Etc.
 
Iamme said:
We no longer live in the dark ages. People world-wide know what we say. They know how we live, and they know of our opinions. Doesn't the term (of this thread) sound like we are up here (raising my hand over my head), while they are down there (putting my hand down as far as it can hang)?
Click to expand...

The whole "world" system is obsolete now anyway, with the collapse of communism. It was pretty conceited even to begin with.

I think most people call them "developing countries" these days, with a unique blend of optimism and condescension.

Jeremy
 
Re: Re: Is "third world country" a demeaning term?

toddjh said:


The whole "world" system is obsolete now anyway, with the collapse of communism. It was pretty conceited even to begin with.

I think most people call them "developing countries" these days, with a unique blend of optimism and condescension.

Jeremy
Click to expand...
I always thought the term "third world" was everything which wasn't part of the Old World (= Europe) or the New World (= North America). So I looked it up on The Straight Dope:
The Third World is thought to hold a position vis-a-vis the First and Second Worlds (the developed capitalist and Communist countries, respectively) comparable to that of the Third Estate (the commoners) with the First and Second estates, i.e., the clergy and the nobility.
Click to expand...
Learn something new everyday.
 
I had always learned:

1st world: countries with developed manufacturing infrastructure
2nd world: developing countries
3rd world: undeveloped countries

In this sense, it's a fairly objective categorization, not a derogatory term.
 
No, but living in a plague-ridden, famine wrought, sewer-war zone is.


And what does the left worry about? Using politically incorrect language to describe it.


Good topic by the way, no offense to you.
 
I think not. When discussing world politics it is useful to recognize that the immediate needs of countries with high infant mortality, negligible infrastructure, little access to potable water, and virtually no education system are different from those of other countries.
 
The way I learned it was:

1st world countries: The superpowers (USA and USSR)
2nd world countires: Other developed countires
3rd world: Everybody else

I think it is a bit outdated as a term, and maybe it pisses off some people. I learned these terms while living in Africa and Africans didn't seem to pissed about it. Granted they had much bigger fish to fry than concerning themselves with how Amercians were refering to their country.
 
I learnt:

First World - developed countries that were "on our side"
Second World - developed communist countries
Third World - undeveloped countries

Certainly in school, in modern studies classes, the term "Third World" was not used; we said "developing countries". Neither did we say "Western nations" for rich countries; we talked about "the North" and "the South", on the grounds that the northern hemisphere seems on the whole to be richer than the southern hemisphere (well, if you ignore those Aussie and Kiwi chaps)

Can't say I much care how they're referred to, but we were told to write "developing countries" in essays, so I did.
 
Hmmm... it depends. If you think that being in the economic class of an airliner or riding in the third class of a train is demeaning, then so is the denomination "third world". I think the analogies apply. But if you hold your head high and say "yes, I'm in the economic class because that's what I can afford now, and it's none of your business", then being in the "third world" shouldn't be offensive.

I don't like the term. First of all, because it lumps together a huge number of countries in widely varied situations. Latin America isn't as poor as Africa, for example. You'll excuse, but the poverty in Brazil - there's malnutritition for sure, but there's not hunger nor other problems as civil wars, dictatorships, our democratic institutions are much stronger - can't be compared to that in Angola, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia. It's incredibly different. Second, because anything that involves "worlds" (Man are from Mars, Women are from Venus. Really!)... that pretty much says we are doomed to be separate. That's sad.

But then, "developing" countries has the same problem, minus the demeaning connotation. But it's also innaccurate, for another reason: some countries are developing, for sure. But others... those are crumbling. Take Iraq in the Saddam era, the AIDS-torn African countries, Venezuela and Bolivia. Sorry, that's not development.

Alternatively, there's "rich", and "poor". Here, the inaccuracy regarding development doesn't apply. It still lumps together different realities. Is the word "poor" demeaning? But still... that's my preferred denomination. I believe in simplicity, and those terms are just that. It makes no opposition between capitalism and communism. It's not condescending. So yeah, I'm from a poor country. That simple. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom