Third World vs First World

ladyscorpio

ladyscorpio

Lively up yourself
BGOL Investor
I am making this so that the discussion started in another thread can be on its own.

Follow in reply to your post

It is hard for me to sit and read those links without thinking that some who did the writing have never once been to any of the islands or the countries described.

In the list of least underdeveloped countries the only Caribbean island listed was Haiti. Which I knew was gonna happen. Haiti has been wrought with political turmoil for a long time now and it has not helped that the country is right in hurricane belt which most times leaves destruction in the wake. An already weak economy would obviously be more difficult to maintain with so much going against.
However, Haiti I believe to be a beautiful place. Despite it all.


Its hard for me to sit and not be a bit concerned when a country that is deemed FIRST WORLD....is wrought with violence and hatreds, low literacy rates and yet calls itself the "dream"

My view of my Caribbean maybe perhaps a tad biased as I have lived there most of my life and my roots are there. West Indians are all one.

I appreciate the links sis.


Peace


followup said:
It's semantics, but any economist will agree that Third world is synonymous with developing or underdeveloped nations. The name is not pretty and stereotypes a lot of countries while ignoring colonialism/empirialism/slavery and the dependency these nations have on the big 8. But calling a rose anything other than rose does not change it. Some Caribbean nations may not be as poor as some African or Asian countries, but they still are third world countries in many of the criteria. I did not say ALL Caribbean nations:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/General/ThirdWorld_def.html
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/least_developed_countries.htm

Edit: One more document to check out: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_20072008_en_complete.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Haiti, will always be hated on, by the West.

haiti-toussaint.jpg


http://www.info-antike.de/regent/regent-d/pictures/haiti-toussaint.jpg
 
I think you may have an issue with the naming and classification system. But when you compare things like life expectancy at birth, GDP per capita, technology/electricity/clean running water/sanitation, unemployment rates, etc. there are very obvious differences in the countries around the world. I've seen many of these countries first-hand and there is a stark contrast in quality of life. Comparing Barbados to Haiti, you can see just one example of the difference in life in just 2 countries. But then look at Jamaica--most of the population lives in poverty and life expectancy is much lower than in Barbados. Jamaica's make-up resembles a poor African nation more than a developed Caribbean nation.
 
followup said:
It's semantics, but any economist will agree that Third world is synonymous with developing or underdeveloped nations. The name is not pretty and stereotypes a lot of countries while ignoring colonialism/empirialism/slavery and the dependency these nations have on the big 8. But calling a rose anything other than rose does not change it. Some Caribbean nations may not be as poor as some African or Asian countries, but they still are third world countries in many of the criteria. I did not say ALL Caribbean nations:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/General/ThirdWorld_def.html
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/least_developed_countries.htm

Edit: One more document to check out: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_20072008_en_complete.pdf
Click to expand...




ladyscorpio said:
I am making this so that the discussion started in another thread can be on its own.

Follow in reply to your post

It is hard for me to sit and read those links without thinking that some who did the writing have never once been to any of the islands or the countries described.

In the list of least underdeveloped countries the only Caribbean island listed was Haiti. Which I knew was gonna happen. Haiti has been wrought with political turmoil for a long time now and it has not helped that the country is right in hurricane belt which most times leaves destruction in the wake. An already weak economy would obviously be more difficult to maintain with so much going against.
However, Haiti I believe to be a beautiful place. Despite it all.


Its hard for me to sit and not be a bit concerned when a country that is deemed FIRST WORLD....is wrought with violence and hatreds, low literacy rates and yet calls itself the "dream"

My view of my Caribbean maybe perhaps a tad biased as I have lived there most of my life and my roots are there. West Indians are all one.

I appreciate the links sis.


Peace
Click to expand...


After reading both of your posts I think you both make good points about this issue and that fundamentally the two of you agree on the need for another, more accurate way to describe and classify certain areas. As you both have mentioned the term "Third World" is probably not the best term to describe the living situations and conditions faced by many of the world’s less fortunate. In my opinion, one of the most important things to remember is something I was taught in school a long time ago. Simply stated the lesson I’m referring to is that “History is written by the winners”. This is what causes things to be spun in ways that will make the “winners” look good. Their victories and stories will be told in ways that inspire admiration from all who encounter them. In most of these cases negative things about a country and/or group’s history are not told. If they are they are presented as afterthoughts, but not as prominent flaws or problems. This is what creates the perception of the “Dream”. In addition to what I have just mentioned, in most , if not all cases, the (real) stories of the oppressed, downtrodden, underprivileged, etc. are not told in ways for the world to see, hear, and understand. In this particular case people are being classified in ways that may not be appropriate when considering the complete story behind their situations. As both ladies have mentioned things like colonialism, economy, and location (e.g. LS’s point about the location of Haiti) are ignored in most accounts of so called Third World Countries. It seems one of the first and most important ways to change the perceptions and attitudes toward “Third World” Countries is to reclassify, redefine, and understand them as a whole. From there it might be possible to (re) educate ourselves on the issues of each country and its citizens. Once these things occur actions could/should be taken to help those in need...


In closing I’d like to say that many cases no matter where we come from if we are poor and/or of color...


 
followup said:
But when you compare things like life expectancy at birth, GDP per capita, technology/electricity/clean running water/sanitation, unemployment rates,
Click to expand...
My country has a very high life expectancy. Better internet and phone service than here. We have had electricity and running water and better sanitation than here for some time. Our unemployment rate is zero. :hmm:
 
followup said:
Jamaica's make-up resembles a poor African nation more than a developed Caribbean nation.
Click to expand...

why am I not astound by your ignorance?

Ever been to Jamaica,your assessment is base from?

and which poor African nation are you referring to?

Please elaborate!
 
Follow there is poverty in pretty much every country. However I have found that countries such as my West Indian ones are singled out because "technically" we do NOT meet the so called "standards" as is dictated by these Amerikan ideals.

Jamaica is a great country and has plenty to offer.
Jamaica's make up does NOT mean third world. Neither does any country that I associate with West Indian cultures.

Africa is only termed "third world" because that is the perception that has been given to the outside world. That ALL africa and countries in the West Indies are lower classed, uneducated, uncivilized....

If I were inundated with images of children naked and ribs showing all the time my perception may too be skewed.


There is a great divide between us and perhaps it is due to misconceptions. :dunno:

followup said:
I think you may have an issue with the naming and classification system. But when you compare things like life expectancy at birth, GDP per capita, technology/electricity/clean running water/sanitation, unemployment rates, etc. there are very obvious differences in the countries around the world. I've seen many of these countries first-hand and there is a stark contrast in quality of life. Comparing Barbados to Haiti, you can see just one example of the difference in life in just 2 countries. But then look at Jamaica--most of the population lives in poverty and life expectancy is much lower than in Barbados. Jamaica's make-up resembles a poor African nation more than a developed Caribbean nation.
Click to expand...
 
LS I agree with you 100% I hate labels be it third world, minorities, n-words even terrorist, it all needs to stop. As I stated in another thread we have to stop accepting the labels others place upon us. If you notice we are never labeled as equals. The same goes for countries where blacks or non-whites are the majority. This country is at war with Iraq and Afghanistan and you never hear these countries labeled third world. Why?

Why are we so willing to accept being labeled as minority? Is it that we were ni99ers for so long being a minority is supposed to be a good thing? It's still a way for whites to say your not our equals The media throws terms like this around daily and it has become so ingrained into our thoughts we even refer to ourselves as minorities. We need to wake up!

Just because a slave ship turned east instead of west doesn't change the fact we are all black. Hatians, West Indians, Jamacians, native born blacks, whoever we are all black and should lookat each other that way and support each other.

I don't look down on any black person regardless of where they come from or what they have. As black people we don't have that luxury.

Followup your saying it's semantics that third world countries are synonymous with developing or underdeveloped nations this maybe true but why are these countries still struggling to survive? Let the US put 10% of what it spends on this war or on defense in Haiti and see how fast they develops.

There's reasons why the struggle exist much of it can be credited to greed but even more of it can be credited to US unwillingness to help countries with brown and black skinned people. The US had no interest in Africa (except diamonds) until the recent discoveries of oil.
 
Rudey said:
why am I not astound by your ignorance?

Ever been to Jamaica,your assessment is base from?

and which poor African nation are you referring to?

Please elaborate!
Click to expand...

lol little do these guys know, my house in jamaica is what these guys dream about and see on mtv cribs, and so are all my neighbor houses..

theres nothing here that we dont have in jamaica we actually get to enjoy life instead of worrying about credit card bills ect
 
alloutmotor said:
lol little do these guys know, my house in jamaica is what these guys dream about and see on mtv cribs, and so are all my neighbor houses..

theres nothing here that we dont have in jamaica we actually get to enjoy life instead of worrying about credit card bills ect
Click to expand...

:yes::yes::yes:
 
alloutmotor said:
lol little do these guys know, my house in jamaica is what these guys dream about and see on mtv cribs, and so are all my neighbor houses..

theres nothing here that we dont have in jamaica we actually get to enjoy life instead of worrying about credit card bills ect
Click to expand...

:yes: gotta agree with you here. I guess some have to live the life to comprehend.
 
SMH. Of course there is poverty in every nation and of course there is wealth in every nation. You don't have to agree with the term "third world", but you can not run from the fact that some countries are more developed than others. I won't talk about it unless I've seen it. If I still have to boil my water, I don't have running water, and the electricity goes out with a strong wind--that is a nation that does not have the same standard of living as most first-world countries. If more than 50% lives below the poverty line (take your pick), that is a developing nation. It's not a curse, and there is not necessarily anything wrong with it because you go to some of these countries and the people are smiling and happier than many people in developed nations. But like I said before, changing the name that we call it does not change the facts. Take a trip and stop reading in books (and BGOL), and maybe you'll see what I'm talking about. Until then......
 
Mo-Better said:
Followup your saying it's semantics that third world countries are synonymous with developing or underdeveloped nations this maybe true but why are these countries still struggling to survive? Let the US put 10% of what it spends on this war or on defense in Haiti and see how fast they develops.
Click to expand...
This is why I do not like spin-off threads. I addressed this in the original thread and I am fully aware of how these labels came about :)
 
Rudey said:
OK basically you cannot answer my question.
Click to expand...
I am not here to educate you. Besides, no matter what I say you are on the offensive and you'll just try to engage me in an argument. Take a trip and judge for yourself. :dunno:
 
followup said:
This is why I do not like spin-off threads. I addressed this in the original thread and I am fully aware of how these labels came about :)
Click to expand...

Follow the reason I did a separate thread is because the original thread was dealing with abortion. As with most threads on this site I did not want to see that thread derailed. That issue had nothing to do with whats being discussed now. Also I wanted real input sis, I appreciate that you are sharing your views.

followup said:
SMH. Of course there is poverty in every nation and of course there is wealth in every nation. You don't have to agree with the term "third world", but you can not run from the fact that some countries are more developed than others. I won't talk about it unless I've seen it. If I still have to boil my water, I don't have running water, and the electricity goes out with a strong wind--that is a nation that does not have the same standard of living as most first-world countries. If more than 50% lives below the poverty line (take your pick), that is a developing nation. It's not a curse, and there is not necessarily anything wrong with it because you go to some of these countries and the people are smiling and happier than many people in developed nations. But like I said before, changing the name that we call it does not change the facts. Take a trip and stop reading in books (and BGOL), and maybe you'll see what I'm talking about. Until then......
Click to expand...


On the highlighted area....this would mean that every country could be determined to be "third world".
 
ladyscorpio said:
On the highlighted area....this would mean that every country could be determined to be "third world".
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't because in some countries, this is what the majority of the people have to do. Whereas in other countries, a small minority do that. But every country has poverty AND wealth.
 
I seem to recall a massive power outage that lasted 3 days and change that took out the entire northeast US and parts of Canada. I recall many many others in NYC without even a strong wind just too many aircos running. During those times, 100% of the people had no current and had to boil water. I have visited people in the south and midwestern US and had to use an outhouse and light kerosene lamps at night. So I suppose by some peoples definitions the US and Canada are third world countries.
 
followup said:
I am not here to educate you. Besides, no matter what I say you are on the offensive and you'll just try to engage me in an argument. Take a trip and judge for yourself. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I think you mean defensive.

No need to take a trip if I was borned and raised there.
 
bigirl said:
I seem to recall a massive power outage that lasted 3 days and change that took out the entire northeast US and parts of Canada. I recall many many others in NYC without even a strong wind just too many aircos running. During those times, 100% of the people had no current and had to boil water. I have visited people in the south and midwestern US and had to use an outhouse and light kerosene lamps at night. So I suppose by some peoples definitions the US and Canada are third world countries.
Click to expand...

That was a crazy time yes....:D I can see in the damn dark what i need light for :lol::lol: my main thing was that I be able to shower.:eek: Yeah that was an interesting time. How dependent we have become on the "luxuries" in life and are unable to live off the basics. Whereas people who survive in "third world" countries do it daily. And more times than not are not as ill or burdened with some of the illnesses which are brought about by excessive chemical usage.

Thank you BG for bringing that up. :)



Peace
 
People tend to distort things to support their points of view. If you can recall the number of times you experienced a black out in the U.S. or Canada on one hand as opposed to it being a regular occurence in other countries, wouldn't that suggest a difference? Not saying that having steady electricity means a better quality of life, just saying that it is something that most developed nations have and many developing nations do not.

Also, one thing that keeps being mentioned: education. While this is one factor which can be used to categorize a third world nation, it is not a benchmark by any means. There are developing nations with higher literacy rates than England. There are several factors used to determine this classification of developing/3rd world. Not saying I agree with the name, but I'm not going to be typing/saying now-sovereign nation below/above the equator which was formerly under the colonial rule of [insert name] and now is economically dependent on the same nation which stripped the raw materials, knowledge, etc.

(That's my last reply on this topic. If you don't get it by now, you never will) :)
 
Rudey said:
why am I not astound by your ignorance?

Ever been to Jamaica,your assessment is base from?

and which poor African nation are you referring to?

Please elaborate!
Click to expand...

Rudey said:
OK,so basically you cannot answer my question.

Good dodging.:cool:
Click to expand...

Rudey said:
I think you mean defensive.

No need to take a trip if I was borned and raised there.
Click to expand...
Nope. I mean "offensive" because I haven't typed anything for you to get defensive about, and yet you treid to bait me.
 
followup said:
Nope. I mean "offensive" because I haven't typed anything for you to get defensive about, and yet you treid to bait me.
Click to expand...

and what did you typed for me to get offensive about?

I questioned/challenged your knowledge,as you professed to know what you are talking about.

All I asked was:

Ever been to Jamaica,your assessment is base from?

and which poor African nation are you referring to?

I would think those questions would be more "defensive" rather than "offensive".:dunno:

Then again you still didn't answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MCP
The Likely Consequences of a US War on Venezuela
Replies
5
Views
316
BlackRob
BlackRob
MCP
African migration: 5 trends and what’s driving them
Replies
0
Views
341
MCP
MCP
Back
Top