Dear WHAP:
The world has often been labeled and divided. Europe vs Asia, New World vs Old World, Cold War camps. Today, some of this debates centers around what we call those who are less fortunate than us. WHAP, here is your first question: "If you shouldn't call it the third world, what should you call it?"
I think that it is best to not label these other countries at all, because there are similarities and differences between all countries. Everyone is developed better in different areas, so we can't just generalize everything. Instead I propose that when referring to such countries we either use their names or group them in the way they are being used. For example, instead of saying "There are people starving in third world countries.". We say, " There are people starving in malnourished countries." Etc.
ReplyDeleteBut wouldn't that only become confusing?
DeleteIn a general idea it'll be obvious that if a country is malnourished then people would be starving, it's just a matter of what countries and how. At least if someone said "Third World countries" then the United States as a population would have a general idea of what areas they're talking about rather then just being confused in the entire conversation.
Hannah, I agree that it would not be best to label other countries. Your idea of referring to these countries as "malnourished countries" is not ridiculous. If this would replace "third world countries" it would not be a problem in my eyes for people to see what you were talking about. However, I can see some groups getting offended at this name because it implies these areas are not good enough and another place is still ahead.
DeleteI agree with Hannah, by not putting a label on these counties.There are so many parts of the world that are starving and it's not just in "third world" counties, a lot of it happens in "first world" countries. Using the term "third world" can associate with that country being poor, but all over the world there is poverty.
DeleteI agree with Hannah. There are definitely similarities and differences between all countries. People are starving everywhere, even in countries like America. You see problems like poverty in places that are not just under developed countries, so I agree that we should call them by names or by groups of what they are used for.
DeleteI also agree with Hannah that grouping the countries in the way they are being referred seems like the most effective strategy. This places the least amount of negative connotations with said country by labeling a specific problem with it instead of generalizing and making it seem like that country is worse or not equal to another.
DeleteThe idea of naming off the world into different sections like "First/Second/Third/Whatever World" is just a huge ego boost. It becomes obvious which countries decided how it would be set up because they're more likely to put themselves on top rather than admit that someone else is better. Using the term of "Whatever World" sounds almost like they're alienated from each other and that they're not worthy to be considered a part of the rest of the population. Whatever just happened to using the country's name to begin with?
ReplyDeleteI agree. Using the country's name is probably the best way to refer to it, however if we're talking about a group of countries it'd be a nuisance to list all of them whenever you use them. The labeling I was using earlier was exemplified in the most basic sense, so yes, it does look confusing. I was just trying to be obvious with how it could be used. It's specific like a country's name, but without the hassle of listing every single country when speaking about multiple countries.
DeleteZandra, I completely agree with your thoughts, especially with the thought about naming countries such as first, second, etc. world countries and that it's not right to name them by these titles. I also agree with you that it would be better just to name these countries by their actual name. I also think that giving them these types of names just separates them from the rest of the world.
DeleteIf we shouldn't have the name "third world" I think the best option the author mentioned was "the majority world." It seems like there would be less problems calling it that but there will most likely always be a party that gets offended. Finding a name to call these countries with trying not to make someone mad will be nearly impossible. However, I understand the convenience of labeling them instead of naming a long list of countries.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe term "majority world" would seem the most correct, but I do not find it to be a good term. If the average American were to give it little thought, they would unintentionally make the psychological connection that the term is a replacement for "3rd world" and connect the "majority" of the world to being what many think when they hear "3rd world"; a place that is primitive or oppressive. I dislike all of the terms for this reason, as they confuse the reader unintentionally.
DeleteI have always felt that the term "3rd world country" seemed derogatory. The term "developing country" seems like a much more friendly term if said correctly. Developing makes me think of building projects, jobs, technological innovation, and efforts to improve life. However, all of the terms can be made to seem derogatory about any other country.
ReplyDeleteThe term can most definitely be considered derogatory, but "developing country" can be taken offensively too. Maybe it would only be to the more sensitive people, but if these countries truly aren't developing at all, by calling them that, they would simply be reminded of how they actually are not moving up in the world.
DeleteI agree with you on using the label of a "developing country". It has a more positive tone. It also promotes the idea that the situation in these countries can change, and they can become more "developed" if they work towards that.
DeleteI definitely degree with Damon. Although "Developing Country" may also seem derogatory, it's more explanatory and is less offensive. Being referred to as a "third world country" does not seem very encouraging; it sounds very stereotypical. But in using a term more like what Damon suggested, it may encourage them to strive towards a better lifestyle.
DeleteI agree with Damon on the "Developing Country" it just has a positive sound to it because we do not know what could happen to the country it could get better or worse. (Coming from you live Marion's Chromebook)
DeleteConsidering how many people there are in the world, it's nearly impossible to find something to call these countries that won't offend anyone at all. No matter what it is, someone, somewhere will be angry. However I do think there could be something better than "Third World", I just can't think of any better suggestions.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you because the titles are outdated and just plain rude now days. But there isn't a better name for them than just calling them the name of their country. They shouldn't have labels for them especially if the labels imply that they are no better than our part of society.
DeleteI agree that we will not find a name to please everyone. You just cannot make everyone happy with labels. Labeling a country is like telling that country that, that is what they have to be giving them no room for improving.
DeleteI agree no matter what you do, you cant please everyone. Unless you call every country the top country, which is impossible, everyone won't be happy. Actually if you call everyone the top country it will probably cause wars.
DeleteI completely agree. Even though the United States may be in better shape than countries like Pakistan they still think they are way better than us so instead of titles like first, second, or third world, classify countries by population, size of industry, or their geography.
DeleteAfter reading the article I have decided that instead of calling them "Third World Countries" or even "Developing Countries" we should just refer to them by the name of their country. It removes all bias and just gets to the point. Why waste time on something that no one can agree on, when we can use something everyone knows?
ReplyDeleteYou make a really good point, and everything would be so much simpler if we could just refer to countries by their actual name. At the very least stop calling them "Third World".
DeleteI think its is hard to label countries under these specific categories of first, second or third world. All countries are different in a variety of ways, which makes it difficult to group them into such broad categories. I think we should just label countries with their name. If we want to describe a country that is not as developed, we should say it is a "developing country". That label has more of a positive tone compared to labeling a country as "third world".
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article I don't think it is appropriate to label countries "third world". It is hard to have the correct label for these countries because they all run into problems. I think we should use the term "growing countries" instead of "third world", because it sounds better and these countries are growing whether it's in their government, people, or economy.
ReplyDeleteThe 1-2-3 classification as always seemed degrading to me. Not to mention how outdated and useless its become. It was always a very broad and vague. There are better ways to classify and describe a country than "third world", or whatever they are. In the article they throw out a few ideas for new terms, like "developing countries" or "majority world". Theses names are no where near as bad as "third world", but don't you think it's still needlessly separating them like that? I think in the long run we would be better off not even using terms like those.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. In the long run, terms are damaging to the countries and leave the average American staring at you blankly. The countries could, in time, take on a more definite shape and render the label useless. Like the article said, it leaves a feeling of hierarchy and a "this country is better" feeling, which isn't accurate or fair.
DeleteI've just never seen any offense to the terms in my opinion. Terror attacks break out from smaller more directed things like the Charlie Hebdo incident. I don't recall any violence from what is a very widely accepted term. I think we should let the "third world" countries speak for themselves. We're not here to babysit them from the tiniest things like an international term.
DeleteLabeling a country is like trying to label a person; one way or another the label is going to offend someone." The labels like "developing" and "lean" didn't seem too bad, as they portray an image of a struggling country, but they leave too much room for interpretation. If we're going to group countries, can't we just use their names or a term to describe the group temporarily?
ReplyDeleteI agree with using a temporary term, so the country can have mobility in the world. Using a the name of the country sounds like a great way to not insult anyone until its name becomes another word for poor because of its inability to flourish for such a long time.
DeleteMy opinion on this is that if we are going to label them then you should label them something that wont make them feel less then the other countries. If you call them 3rd world or a developing world it makes them sound second rate. You need to call them something that would make them sound at least equal to all the other countries to not offend them.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, I think that instead of labeling a country as a first, second, or third world country, we should use the countries actual name or use the "developing country" or the "growing countries." A lot of countries around the world that would be considered as "third world countries" are still growing and developing. I feel that calling a country a "third world country" is very offensive, and we can definitely find a better term for the state that they are in.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that both terms feed into a very Eurocentric view of our world, and imply that “first world”, or “developed” countries are what the rest of the world should be striving to achieve. When, in reality, no country is perfect and each has it’s own unique set of problems. In my opinion, “Majority World” is the most appropriate, accurate, and least offensive of the terms this article discussed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emma, mostly because using the term "developing countries" would describe the Third World Countries the best, because those countries are not quite up to par compared with other countries like the United States, Great Britain, and many more modernized countries. Third world countries can easily be compared to hunter gatherer societies, because hunter gatherers were either conquered and forced to assimilate, or chose to assimilate and adopt the new technologies and agricultural ways to stay ahead (and alive). These "developing countries" are at some point going to have to do the same as the hunter gatherers did, or they will be left in the dust. Using the word "development" labels most of the Third World countries correctly, because in order to be remotely close to our modern technology, they will have to develop as a society to improve their chance of survival in the world today.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the term "developing countries" is best. It gives those countries a chance for improving and moving up. Although who really has the right to say one group of countries is better than another, all have their problems some just worse than others. Given any title that is given wont be right in everyone's eyes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these "labels" aren't a big deal. I'm not trying to say that these cultures don't matter, but really, is our biggest issue nowadays what we are calling other countries? Are we offending anyone? I don't believe so. Has violence broken out from the term? I don't believe so for that either. Sure it's not the nicest thing to say but it's not that big of a deal in my opinion. I'm not here to belittle the other cultures, just saying what I believe is true. There is no point to argue back and forth on a widely accepted term. It is pointless.Then again, I'm not surprised, in this day and age everyone has something to be offended about, so who knows what this might turn into.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this because it hasn't caused any wars or riots. The only reason why the world should be classified is to show factual information about that region.
DeleteI agree with your point, we only label them as third world because they need aid or are not as developed as countries around them.
DeleteI believe that if we are to label any country or region we should use better labels. We could take surveys of each countries' GDP (Gross Domestic Product) or the GDP Per Capita (GDP per person) and rate the different countries as High Level Income, Mid to High Income, Mid Income, and so on. Then we could also look at the Human Development Indicators such as child and maternal health, nutrition, sanitation, education, ect. and label them as either Developed,Developing, and Under-developed. Once you have found the two terms you can put them together for the new term i.e. High Income-Developed.
ReplyDeleteI think that labeling countries as third world countries is really not a big issue. There are countries labeled as third world countries because of war, poverty or famine. Or maybe because they are not as advanced as the first world societies. By labeling countries as third world, you exclaim that it is a country that needs aid, whether it be food or supplies to support the countries infrastructure and help it climb out of the third world status. Although labeling a country as third world may be degrading the country and the people in it, it is not always a bad thing to label it so. The United States is the largest supplier of foreign aid to third world countries in the world, yet people label us as a bad country. So if the U.S. is so bad, should we just stop supplying the countries and then see how well the world does?
ReplyDeleteThe 1-2-3 terms used for describing countries are condescending and irrelevant now, because like the article says, economically flourishing countries such as Saudi Arabia are still described with a word synonymous to poor. These terms are misleading because they're so outdated. Countries are allowed no mobility in the hierarchy of terms, and are stuck in one category because of their status from so long ago. These terms should be abolished, and the countries should be recognized by their names.
ReplyDeleteIf not to call them the third world countries, in my opinion I think we should call them the underdeveloped countries. Although in my opinion I do not believe that calling countries, third world countries, is such a biggie. I mean, we use 1-2-3 terms in an everyday society and there really is no big problem by doing that. If your referring to a third world country as a country that is poor or has occurring issues then I don't see why you wouldn't label the United States as one. 50 million people living in the U.S. are living in poverty and even in some areas they're labeled as third world. *cough cough, Detroit.* But what do I know.
ReplyDeleteDo you need some Advil for your cough.
DeleteFrankly, the term "Third World Country" is very degrading. However, it does not seem very relevant. There must be some better way to categorize these countries. Countries who are less prosperous and are known for their war should be referred to more specifically. Instead of generalizing the countries by class or wealth, why not categorize by geography? "Third World Country" is just a very negative way to describe them and makes it seem as if there is no hope for them to prosper.
ReplyDeleteI think that we should call "Third World" countries the developing countries ( I came up with that before I read the article, ask Dawsen) because they aren't ready to be in world affairs yet. Wether it was their military, financial situation, or leadership they didn't join sides during important wars, such as the Cold Wars. Its not like they are less than "First" or "Second" Countries, an example would be Saudi Arabia they're one of the richest countries in the world but still considered a "Third World". Developing sounds more respectful and realistic to the countries who could rise and take over the world later.
ReplyDeleteno, hes lying.
DeleteI don't believe its right to split the world up into different categories like first, second, third world countries. Pretty much every country in the world has its prosperous areas and areas that are in complete poverty so it does nothing but put a bad name on that particular country and put false stereotypes into our minds. I think instead we should classify different countries by population or by their geography.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should label these countries as "Third World Countries" because it could be offensive to people and it could make people feel superior to others and it could make others feel like they're less important. Instead of labeling countries for what they are known for in the world or how their economy is doing, we could just name them by their actual country's name.
ReplyDelete