From another thread: Now, my understanding was that the original terminoloy was: Old World (Europe), New World (America), Third World (everybody else).But then, as America became as civilized as Europe, we became defacto members of the "first world", while third world countries remeined third world countries. So, Fraggle, am I right?
I think there are no first and second worlds, but there were two "worlds" opposing each other during the cold war and the third world is simply the ones did not choose sides.
well second world actually doesnt refer to counties at all but rather to the problems of the poor and homeless in first world countries. As for what the first world is its all the ritch industralised nations
Labels like the "third world" have fallen out of favor among sociologists, anthropologists and even economists. Not just for PC reasons but also because their nature is so fluid. Most academics use "developing nations" and "developed nations" and even "peripheral" and "core" has fallen out of common use.
No. Numbering the "Worlds" did not originate in colonial times. In those days, the New World was the part that "nobody" had known about until it was "discovered," i.e. the Western Hemisphere. To be fair, the people of the Americas were just as ignorant of the Eastern Hemisphere. With, of course, the possible exception of the Eskimo-Aleut people who arrived only 4000 years ago and may have retained legends of their origin and the still-recognizable cultures of their cousins in Siberia. To this day "Old World" and "New World" are shorthand terms for the cultures of the two hemispheres. The term "Third World" was coined in 1951 by a French writer. It's important to note that "First World" and "Second World" were never common terms, before or since. They were called "the West" and "the East" over here and "the imperialists" and "the democracies" over there, although plenty of other terms were also widely used on both sides. Even after "Third World" came into everyday use, we still didn't speak of the First World and the Second World. I'm not sure anyone has ever explicitly defined which side was the First World and which the Second. On our side it was always implicit that we were the First World, but it's hard to believe that the Russians would ever have settled for being the "Second" of anything.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Alfred Sauvy, the originator, always intended for the term to apply to the "un-" or "underdeveloped" nations regardless of their politics, and that usage has prevailed. The U.S.-allied but nonetheless destitute democracies in Africa, Asia and Latin America have always been counted as Third World countries, as have Soviet-Chinese allies North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba. These days, people who work in the field of international finance and development include former Soviet republics such as Tajikistan in the "Third World," since the post-Perestroika era has worked out very badly for them.
Looks like I was mistaken. First world was the developed "free world" (countries allied with the US in the cold war, Second world was the communist and socialist countries allied with the Soviets, third world was everyone else. Sounds like PC bullshit to me. How is "developing nation" a more fluid term than third world nation? PS I think the idea put forth in the OP was based on the song, New World Man, by Rush. The lyrics speak in terms of new world, old world, and third world and, having never been told differently (or bothered to look it up), I assumed that was the way the term came about. Hes a rebel and a runner Hes a signal turning green Hes a restless young romantic Wants to run the big machine Hes got a problem with his poisons But you know hell find a cure Hes cleaning up his systems To keep his nature pure Learning to match the beat of the old world man Learning to catch the heat of the third world man Hes got to make his own mistakes And learn to mend the mess he makes Hes old enough to know whats right But young enough not to choose it Hes noble enough to win the world But weak enough to lose it --- Hes a new world man... Hes a radio receiver Tuned to factories and farms Hes a writer and arranger And a young boy bearing arms Hes got a problem with his power With weapons on patrol Hes got to walk a fine line And keep his self-control Trying to save the day for the old world man Trying to pave the way for the third world man Hes not concerned with yesterday He knows constant change is here today Hes noble enough to know whats right But weak enough not to choose it Hes wise enough to win the world But fool enough to lose it --- Hes a new world man...
It's just the opposite, it's less fluid. An un- or underdeveloped nation could switch sides during the Cold War without changing its status as un- or underdeveloped. Switching allegiances from NATO or SEATO to the USSR or China--as a number of countries did, some more than once--was not a meaningful change to the citizens who didn't have roads, doctors or schools. You made a fundamental mistake in assuming that the New World and the Old World did not include the pre- and barely industrial countries in their hemispheres. Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson are poets, and poets often deliberately stretch the meanings of words. Sometimes it's because they're using them metaphorically, and others it's just because they fit the meter. In this case it was probably because "New World Man" was one of the quickest songs they ever wrote and they didn't spend much time researching their facts and terms. I'm sure they put more work into "Cygnus X-11."Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Good Link. I thought I knew what this meant. I didn't. You have posted more than 3,000 posts, and I've not noticed you before. Tiers Monde. Third World. It's a nice example of a phrase which you think has been around forever, but hasn't. To follow on from Sauvy's comparison between the Third World and the third estate, there's a big difference. The Third Estate in France included the Bourgeoisie, who had wealth, but no political power. They gained power through Revolution. The Third World has neither wealth nor Political power. Those that are becoming wealthier will be co-opted into the First World. It won't require revolution this time.
To me... 1st world is those who have electricity, clean potable water, good transportation and infrastructure, good schools, good health care and stable governments as well as more things but those are at the top of the list. 2nd world is those who are getting almost to the 1st worlds level and are building towards that goal but are not quite there yet. They have some of everything but just not everywhere as yet in their country. 3rd world are those who need assistance from others to keep afloat in all areas and they are failing badly in many areas that the two levels above already have attained.
It's fluid because it describes a nation that is "developing" its place in the global economy, as its own sovereignity, its own political system, its own post-colonial place among other post-colonial nations, etc. It's fluid because a "developing" nation is still working out its own environmental challenges in relation to its industrial advancement or achievements. Fluidity describes these challenges in stark terms since many "developing" nations are well-behind the curve on dealing with industrial waste, human pollution, and other by-products of a free market and capitalist-based society. Their efficiency in dealing with these challenges can vary from year to year; decade to decade; regime to regime. It's also fluid because a "developing" nation might still be working out its political situation -going from communist regime to dictatorship to democracy then back to dictatorship in a single generation. I'm not attempting to justify the term "developing" or to sugar coat a label in order to avoid "offending" anyone -I'm only telling you what the current academic constructs are and why they are useful opposed to the more limiting and rigid terms of the past. "Third world" creates a rank that exists only from the perspective of a "first world" observer -the observer in the "third world" might see his/her "world" or existence as first and foremost. Moreover, ranking a nation as "third" or even "second" or "first" implies a non-existent privilege or right to some people. "Third world" was a term used in academia to refer to countries that were once colonized or still under colonial rule or influence. But it was first used to refer to those nations not aligned with the West (the "first world") or the East (the "second world"). Since the Cold War is dead and buried, the use of "third world" remains among some a pejorative. It stands to reason that those wishing to describe, discuss or dialog about nations that are still in challenging stages of development without invoking pejorative contexts would use a term like "developing" since it does have a fluid nature.
This is pretty much what I was saying. Third world and "developing nation" are pretty much synonyms. They certainly refer to the same places. But, just as we no longer have the stomach to call a disabled person a "cripple", or a person with an IQ of 50 to 69 a moron, we soon will no longer be able to use the term "third world". I find the way we constantly change the terminology we use to refer to negative things annoying. It's as though we think that by not using the evil words the evil things will go away. It's a refusal to accept reality, acting as if we can change reality by saying different words. Call the cripple disabled and he'll regain the use of his legs! Call the moron developmentally delayed and he'll soon been joining MENSA. Reality is what it is. Actions can change things, using different words to hide the truth will not.
Call the nation developing and allow it to be run by Lee Kuan Yew for three decades and it will develop the 25th highest standard of living on the planet, fluidly moving from third world to first world.
Calling a nation a third world country when that term is appropriaate in no way should hinder its development anymore than calling a 10 year old kid shorty because he's 4 feet tall prevents him from being 6'4' when he's 18.
So long as we're making things up as we go along [madwayne], why can't Africa be the 1st world, given this common reference - 'the cradle of mankind'?.
