Must countries endure being called a "Third World?"
By Miloque
@Miloque (130)
Philippines
June 8, 2009 11:30pm CST
For a long time, politicians, sociologists, and economists have used the term Third World to refer to countries whose economy is only moderate.
I live in one of those countries and having recently found that our president is selected as a representative of the "Third World" I felt a bit down about it. Honestly, being called a third world country, for me, is nothing to be proud of.
I hope that the terms, "First World" "Second World" and "Third World" is abolished for it affects cultural self esteem.
I wonder... Who coined these terms and why?
5 responses
@pillusch (1147)
• Mexico
9 Jun 09
Economic development is only the measurable effect the real development of a country has. I live in a third world country, having been born and raised in a first world country. The informality, lack of punctuality, very relative dealings with the truth, expresses itself in its GNP. Look at the corruption in third-world-countries compared to Europe, let’s say. Yes, there is corruption everywhere, but it’s only institutionalized in countries of the third world.
Yes, they have great family life, they throw great parties, like to walk on the beach, have a good time. But they do deserve to be called what they are called: Third-World-Countries.
I’m sorry if that sounds harsch, but I’m trying to bring up my kids in an environment like that, and the only thing left for me is calling things by their name.
@Miloque (130)
• Philippines
9 Jun 09
Might as well call us the "Third Rate Country" then.. Nahh.. hehe.. Just kidding.
My sentiments are just personal thoughts, as are yours. It's just the word "Third" that ticks me sometimes. Thanks for your reply and honest opinion.
And it is true of what you say, a lot of corruption happen mostly in these countries, mine included. In fact, as I am writing my thesis on Filipino Graphic novels right now, I stumbled on this particular issue. What I realized is that the root of corruption is in fact a cultural problem, not a moral one. Partly it's because of the colonial influence, but mostly the fault is on the country's own cultural value itself. For us here, it all bolts down to our social worldview on familial duties.
@venshida (4836)
• United States
9 Jun 09
I often wonder about this terminology also. I think it's a way for rich countries to looked down on poorer countries. It's really offensive.
@Miloque (130)
• Philippines
10 Jun 09
Hmm... You know, right now I am starting to realize something...
Aren't we (that is me and my fellows living in these developing countries) are the ones feeding our own monsters?
From what Murderistic shared here regarding the history of the term, I see now that maybe the reason it is degrading is because we see it that way. I feel it that way. Maybe that's the problem.
It's like that other terminology many Filipino writers had used since the turn of the Century, "Little Brown American" pertaining to Filipinos who embraced western lifestyle.
It's degrading since it connotes how these Filipinos act like Americans but are not.
Well, postmodernity does change the society's views.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
9 Jun 09
If it makes you feel any better I think they stopped officially using those terms about 10 years ago. Now we call such countries "developing nations". Personally I didn't know that the Philippines was considered as such. I usually hear that term referring to nations in Africa or Central America.
@murderistic (2278)
• United States
9 Jun 09
I just got done a university course called "Economic Development in Third World Countries," so that's news to me :P
@murderistic (2278)
• United States
9 Jun 09
You've got it all wrong... third world is not equated with poor! Third world countries actually coined the term themselves! I believe the term was coined during the cold war, for countries to distinguish themselves from the capatilist and the communist nations (1st and 2nd world). Unfortunately, most people don't know that and equate third world with poor. But it's actually one of the least offensive ways to address countries with lower GDP's and such because it has more to do with culture and government than with wealth.
@heathcliff (1415)
• United States
9 Jun 09
A+ on the origins of the term, but is it really less offensive than basing it on GDP? Seems that would be a fairer and nicer way of presenting it. "You are a third world economy" has got to be less offensive than "you are a third world people".
The terms are certainly outdated, which is why you hear the "developed" versus "developing" countries tags now more often AND many "third world" countries have better economies than the old "second world" countries now.
Sadly, the top 12, or so, economic powers will always determine the terminology and criteria! Guess that's the incentive to get to one of those spots!
@murderistic (2278)
• United States
10 Jun 09
Honestly, I find the developed vs. Developing to be extremely offensive. First of all... Can a contry ever be fully developed? All countries are developing. Some have higher gnp than others, but what does that really show? GNP doesn't factor in unemployment, working conditions, and health and well-being. Calling countries developing is just another way to spread american capitalist hegemony throughout the world. Third world sounds demeaning if you don't know the origins, but its not.
