PDA

View Full Version : Third World?



satay
03 October 2011, 01:37 PM
namaste,
I still keep hearing this term 'Third World' being used in media and elsewhere. Every time I hear it I want to scream and tell the person using this term that 'hey idiot, there is no such thing as 'third world' anymore.' and that 'do you even know where the term came from and why it was used?'.

As far as I know the term came from the cold war days where US assigned itself the first world title, and called Russia the second world and all asian and african nations (aside from australia and south africa?) the third world. What nonsense is this? There is no coldwar anymore, there is no 'russia' per se so there is no second world anymore yet the asians get stuck with the nonsense term of Third World.

For anyone using this term, please stop and use the more appropriate term 'Developing Countries' which is still stupid but not so obvious anymore.

Thanks for listening to my rant. (steps off the soap box).

Spiritualseeker
03 October 2011, 02:18 PM
Namaste,

Totally agree. Now the term a lot of time deals with many nations that were screwed over by IMF and the United States. Too bad how this world works. Sometimes I feel that perhaps our planet is the less evolved, but who knows if the ignorance is wide spread in the Universe.


Om

Ramakrishna
03 October 2011, 10:06 PM
Namaste,

I completely agree as well. Nowadays I hear 'developing country' used more and more, but a lot of people still use 'third world'. It is an insulting and outdated term.

Jai Sri Ram

Mana
04 October 2011, 01:37 AM
NAmasté All

Good points!

How about the 4th world, encompassing all? It has a pleasant resonance ...


Amongst the things "Developed" in the West are: an overtly grandiose ego, a bad case of collective "OCD", and a massive debt.


praNAma

mana

Jainarayan
04 October 2011, 09:32 AM
How about just "The World"? ;) I daresay that when the extraterrestrials arrive, or that comet or asteroid is headed for Earth, we'll pull together as one people, pronto!

OM GUY
04 October 2011, 05:20 PM
namaste,
I still keep hearing this term 'Third World' being used in media and elsewhere. Every time I hear it I want to scream and tell the person using this term that 'hey idiot, there is no such thing as 'third world' anymore.' and that 'do you even know where the term came from and why it was used?'.

As far as I know the term came from the cold war days where US assigned itself the first world title, and called Russia the second world and all asian and african nations (aside from australia and south africa?) the third world. What nonsense is this? There is no coldwar anymore, there is no 'russia' per se so there is no second world anymore yet the asians get stuck with the nonsense term of Third World.

For anyone using this term, please stop and use the more appropriate term 'Developing Countries' which is still stupid but not so obvious anymore.

Thanks for listening to my rant. (steps off the soap box).

Hmmm. The third world is still very much with us, in that there are still social, political and economical divisions in the world. The players may have disguised themselves and may have moved around the chessboard, but that doesn't mean it's over.

Arms are still being bought and sold, most of them being developed and created in the first world and transmitted via the second world to the third. One look at the relationship between the USA and Cuba, for instance, assures me that the cold war is still a part of the 21st century. The media may have reinvented the words and applied them more heavily to demean a nation or a people's standing, I'll give you that. They've cleverly done that with the words " Kleenex and Avatar", as well.

So long as money is exchanged, there will always be the need for a third world.

satay
05 October 2011, 09:36 AM
namaste,



So long as money is exchanged, there will always be the need for a third world.








If we must insist on using terms like first world, third world then US is definitely in the third world category as it has huge debts like the rest of the third world countries. Greece is at the brink of bankcruptcy among other European countries.

Since China lent US the money, China is the first world. :cool1:

Mana
05 October 2011, 11:05 AM
Since China lent US the money, China is the first world. :cool1:

Namasté Satay,

This is quite true, however; China is no longer capable or producing enough food to feed her self, It is entirely dependant upon import to live; precarious to say the least!

The Saudi's Own a large chunk also.

But Private companies own The Federal reserve and they don't care a damn as to what the American people owe nor how the will pay it back.

It is truly monopoly money now.

The power of the illusion that has been maintained is phenomenal.

praNAma

mana

OM GUY
05 October 2011, 02:50 PM
namaste,



If we must insist on using terms like first world, third world then US is definitely in the third world category as it has huge debts like the rest of the third world countries. Greece is at the brink of bankcruptcy among other European countries.

Since China lent US the money, China is the first world. :cool1:

I don't insist upon using terms like the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world, it simply is what it is.

I'm sure that we can sit here and talk about which nation phases in and out of all three, that then serves my argument with the fact that it still exists. Heck, that's why politically correct terms came to be! People didn't like the term "hobo", so they reinvented it into "the homeless"...

But having a huge debt surely does not place the US automatically into "third world" status, any more than China is in the first world because it loans money.

satay
05 October 2011, 10:50 PM
namaste,

I replied to your post where you said that so long money is exchanged there will be a third world. In that context US is third world since it is borrowing money from a country who is able to lent it money. Unless you are saying that countries that are in debt are first world? and countries that lend money are third world? That would be strange long indeed.

Not sure I follow your thought but not to worry, I am not anti US. I am just venting that calling other countries thrid world is old and idiotic.

People should get on with the new age and current times. Yet, I understand people's inability to do that. :Cool:



But having a huge debt surely does not place the US automatically into "third world" status, any more than China is in the first world because it loans money.

OM GUY
06 October 2011, 01:41 AM
namaste,

I replied to your post where you said that so long money is exchanged there will be a third world. In that context US is third world since it is borrowing money from a country who is able to lent it money. Unless you are saying that countries that are in debt are first world? and countries that lend money are third world? That would be strange long indeed.

Not sure I follow your thought but not to worry, I am not anti US. I am just venting that calling other countries thrid world is old and idiotic.

People should get on with the new age and current times. Yet, I understand people's inability to do that. :Cool:

Hari OM! Capitalism needs a third world, as in capitalism needs slaves at the bottom of the food chain. Capitalism needs to exploit.

It would not matter to me if you were anti-US, for thier surely are plenty of reasons for being anti-US in many instances. But I don't think a country can be rated third world simply because they borrow money. Take India for example, they have one foot in each world, as does Saudi Arabia, as does many nations. One must carefully balance all three factors in deciding to place an over-all moniker on a nation. There are degrees, after all. :)

PrahaladB
24 October 2011, 07:02 PM
Hi also what's annoying is that whenever the '3rd world' or poverty is mentioned, the media only seems to focus on non Christian Asian or African nations. When there are plenty of Christian nations that are extremelly poor (despite what missionary's/converts say).

For instance the Phillipines is so poor that crime has shot right up making it one of the most dangerous places (I've travelled and worked in several Asian cities and Manilla was so bad that when I was working there I was advised not to travel to the office alone even though it was only a few hundred meters from the hotel. While I was able to go out at night alone in places like Mumbai and Shanghai).

South American countries are so bad that any landing card for any country in the world will specifically ask you in the quaratine section, if you have travelled there along with Africa in the past month.