Pulse #7 - Comments - Third World
Please click below to link directly to the comments on this page:
| AGREE | DISAGREE | UNSURE |
The term 'Third World' is offensive and should not be used.
Do you agree? Disagree? Unsure?
"There are many alternative and nicer ways in which different parts of our world and its people can be described." [UK]
"The world can not be described in reference to economic status only as at a Macro Leval, the Human race is one (this calls for a REAL BROADMINDEDNESS!). Such descriptions of regions certainly further erodes GLOBAL BROTHERHOOD. Looking at it from a spiritual perspective...WE ARE ONE and any doubts and ignorence can also be termed as MENTALLY UNHEALTHY. Its time to think as such offensive references make this WORLD more POOR (value system) as it leads to creation of more Unethical minds." [India]
"Besides the obvious negative connotations, the term doesnt reflect the issues (polical, economic, social) that this part of the world is wrestling with. Don't have a good suggestion though. One may argue: now that there isnt a "second world" why couldn't the "third world" be promoted? Nice poll - well done." [South Africa]
"While there could be a sexy connotation to Third World - as in a "third" world, apart and distinct from the developed world, I find it implies heirarchy - as in, first is better than third. When we're working - or I'm working, at least - to dismantle that notion, to encourage listening and teaching from the developing world to the developed world, I would rather not use language that embeds the "I'm better than you" mentality." [Canada]
"The term 'Third World' is actually offensive because it has no logical meaning. Where is the 'Second World' by the way? 'Developing Countries'is more appropriate a term than Third World." [UK]
"This terminology assumes a heirarchy of rank and priveldge." [ ]
"I come from Kenya and when I am called third world, I know it means that we can never get to the top, we will always be no.3 and yet no one gives us the opportunity and means to develop. Just because a few selfish leaders are messing up the continent does not mean we are doomed - we can do better but we need guidance and the means to do so." [Kenya]
"It sounds patronising." [India]
"This term is now very dated, particularly as we no longer refer to 'Second World' countries and this makes the term 'third world' seem even more removed from the supposedly advanced economies." [ ]
"Third World implies a stagnate condition, one that doesn't evolve and change. All societies evolve and developing countries should not be given the label of the "third world"." [ ]
"Third is perceived as inferior to First." [USA]
"I entirely agree that the term "Third World" is offensive. I similarly feel that the term "developing country" is inappropriate. Both reveal normalizing tactics designed to determine what is deviant. The question is, by whose standards? Who determines what is "Third World," and to whose benefit?" [ ]
""Third World", the "South" and "developing countries" are all offensive because they lump many countries together, not recognizing their individuality and differing levels of economic development." [Switzerland]
"The parameters for designating countries as first, and third world countries is arbitary." [ ]
"The term sounds like "third class citizens"! We don't hear of the "First (or second) world", why should we be hearing of the "Third world"? Since economic development is the unit of measurement, the best terminologies are "Developed and less developed countries"." [Mali]
"The "indicators" for this classification are decided by the West and favors the West." [The Gambia]
"These term goes against equality of all human beings - It measures countires according to their economy and developement in relation to the West!! Who said that the Western countries are the measuring standard of the world? This term categorizes people into 2nd Class and 3rd class citizens of the World. This is definitely unacceptable!!!!!!!!" [Kenya]
"We should not use terms that focus on the worlds deficits. In so doing we carry the assumption that there is a deficit in all areas of society. This is simply not true. A country may be financially poor but rich in culture or in some other terms. If you tell someone they are poor and that money is all that counts they may loose faith in their society and possiblitly themselves." [USA]
"The term is ridiculous, i bet it was coined by these so called developed countries who consider themselves the first world... haha... what an irony..." [ ]
"concept of ranking..." [USA]
"Experienced in 66 countries, I have found that "Developing Countries," or "Países en vía de desarrollo" is preferable." [USA]
"After the cold war ended the term is not appropriate anymore. But if we are identified as developing countries, it is a lie because we will not develop further." [Mexico]
"I have had the privilege of residing in 6 countries, working in more than 30, and visiting more than 60. I understand that I am a member of a global community - the human family." [USA]
"Where did it come from in the first place? and what makes those in the other worlds any better? or is it because they are the ones who did the naming in the first place?" [ ]
"I prefer developing nations." [Canada]
"A good indication of how offensive it might be is the fact that the countries of the so-called third world get "no respect" from the rest of the world. Many years ago Algeria, Cuba and others led the charge to make this group have some clout in the international (group of 77 and other conferences) but the realities of poverty and superpowers prevailed. Since then there is not a third world country that would not like to escape from being a member of this group or from the stigma of being one, since the label is one of poverty and underdevelopment. Either way you look at it, whether third means ranked third (i.e.last in the race to be like the Europeans or the Americans, assumed to be what every country is supposed to aspire to) or one third of the total (as the French term implies), or as a third party to a deal primarily between two others (guess who) it is a bad label. Some of the countries that belong to this group are the birth place of humankind and the cradle of civ!ilization as we know it; size-wise (population and space) it s a safe bet that they together represent the largest proportion of the planet; finally to understand it as meaning third party to a deal brings back memories of colonial powers and modern superpowers who to this day continue to resolve their differences or pursue their aspirations on the back of the poor nations and dictate their way often through so-called assistance to development efforts. It is just one of many belittling labels bestowed upon the recipients of international aid by their benefactors and one that needs to be retired, however the abject poverty and disease that is associated with it will be harder to forget or to change." [USA]
"The term 'developing countries' is more appropriate." [ ]
"This is a legacy from history when the world was artificially divided into two and those who did not fit or were not considered to be fit in these two worlds were put into a "third" world. The World is one." [ ]
"This term is the most politically incorrect especially in this day and age. It should be phase out from the development dictionary as it is as derogatory as calling the Africans and Afro-Americans "nigger." People should should be obliged to use the term developing nations instead." [Kenya]
"The countries that call themselves the "first world" are where they are today because of the wealth they plundered and are still plundering from the so called "Third world" countries and leaving those countries poor..Anyways who decides this is a "third world country and this is a first world country..?" [Switzerland]
""Two-Thirds World" is more like it!." [ ]
"I strongly disagree. This terminology is derogatory and implies that developing countries are different from the more developed countries in a negative way. It is demeaning!" [USA]
""Third World" is a colonial term. It is both offensive and wildly inaccurate." [ ]
"The more accurate description would be low income countries." [ ]
""Third world" implies there is a first, and a second world, with all the attendant supremacies these terms depict. People are different. Until the term "underdeveloped" (another term that should be scrapped!) was used by an American statesman? to refer to certain parts of the world we were all innocent in our acceptance of all peoples." [Nigeria]
"The term Majority World is more appropriate." [Bangladesh]
"There is no such thing as a "Third World". Economically-challenged countries are as rich in culture and knowledge as economically-rich countries." [ ]
"I think we are used to using the terminology "third world", but I think it creates a division within the global community." [ ]
"The term Third World was devised by so-called academics in the alledged "Developed World". Having resided in both types of countries for a considerable length of time, I am still unable to see the marks of superiority in the "industrialised countries". Instead, I have noticed the same types of cares, concerns and progression towards further development in both areas. The term Third World has been sensationalised by the media in the "industrialised countries" to mean half-starving people without access to basic facilities. The problem worsens when "born and bred" inhabitants of lesser developed countries accept the wreath of inferiority that is thrown at them by referring to themselves as members of Third World states." [ ]
"It is a label that implies inferiority." [USA]
"The word 'third' automatically positions the developing countries as of third category and their citizens as 'third' class human beings." [ ]
"The term has little meaning after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also, the term 'third' is often equated with 'third-rate' or third-class. The term in fact encompasses two-thirds of the globe!" [India]
"I prefer Third word in spite of developing country." [Colombia]
"I fully agree with this view. When all of us are on one world or planet (earth), discrimination between first/second/third world people is totally wrong and never to be used. All human beings have equal rights irrespective of their socio-economic background." [USA]
"Third World is a Western-centric term. I don't like "developing world" either-it implies that western-style development is inevitable and desirable." [ ]
"It is a discrimiantory. It indicates people living in such a world are subhuman." [ ]
"What should i comment....words like this reflect a poor state of the mind of the people who have limited brains!" [ ]
"I find the term highly offensive. It establishes some rank of 'order' placing all those who represents countries that do things differently than their colonizers as something 'less' something 3rd rate. As an American living in Uganda, I find it most sad that the term is widely used here by Ugandans and expats alike." [Uganda]
"It's a hangover from the cold war and even then was pejoritive. We live in a new world ... remember Indira Gandhi's famous quote : "We are not a bloc or a Third world, but poart of this, our only world."" [Trinidad]
"The implication is one of hierarchy and superiority when first and third world are used, there are better ways to make the same distinction like, 'low income countries'....." [USA]
"Yes the term third world should not be used. It makes us feel that we are nothing having no respect at international level." [Pakistan]
"This is degrading and draconian. It depends very well on your indicators of rating. Third world may as well be first world in adifferent way of rating." [Kenya]
"'Third World' gives you a connotation of belonging to a 'Third Class' nation. An extension of colonial thoughts and impression." [Sudan]
"I also dislike the words developing countries and developed countries, as if the countries of the North still do not have developmental challenges - they do and until they face these it holds all of us back - all countries are developing. Alternatively we could talk about underdeveloped and overdeveloped countries but I prefer the notion of North and South." [South Africa]
"The word 'developing world' would be digested much better!" [Jordan]
"Economically developed or developing is acceptable. 1st, 3rd etc is not!" [India]
""First World" is a better term. After all, there are more of "us" than there are of "them"." [ ]
"But I am at a loss for an alternative." [ ]
"I like "under-developed countries" or "lesser developed countries."" [USA]
"Equally as offensive as the notion of an "Islamic World". There is only one world!" [ ]
"Although the term most often is not used despectively, it is perceived as such by most people in developing countries." [Panama]
"There is only one world, let alone, the THIRD world. It gives the impression that the issues of others in the world are at least a world away; far removed from the self-appointed first world." [ ]
"The term is a hangover from the days when the world was split into first (the West), second (eastern Europe) and third (the rest), ie, the bottom of the pile. I feel quite strongly about not using it anymore." [Switzerland]
"When will the 'third world' move up to 2nd or 1st?" [Nigeria]
"Besides it being deregetory, if the first and second worlds don't exist anymore, why should the 'third world' exist." [UK]
"Third-world is a term used to denote people of color, it has become a euphemism for the "n" word and other racial epithets." [USA]
"The term is actually also wrong and misleading, and tends to be derogatory." [Kenya]
"We are from one world. The idiot who coined the word Third World should go back to school and learn that earth is one planet. It there are three earths, then I will agree with this idiot." [ ]
"A better term that I heard at the APHA Annual Conference was "2/3 of the world" since 2/3 of the world share the social and economic disadvantage that we characterize "Third World countries" as having." [ USA]
"Better would be 'developing countries'." [ ]
"The term developing world sounds good." [South Africa]
"The 2nd world has "disappeared" to a large extent, so the ranking is as false as the concept." [UK]
"There is only one world created by the Almighty Father and that one world is where we all live in." [Nigeria]
"it ain't no different to calling a grown man boy or a black man nigger. it signifies something negative, just as black is pitted against white and good is pitted against evil, so to is third world pitted against first world. the term reeks of inequality and therefor should not be used. it's just a case of someone else trying to define my reality for me and it should not be accepted." [ ]
"Third world conditions exist in SE L.A., so no need to twist one's neck trying to be politically correct." [Canada]
"With the disappearance of the "second world" this term has lost its hierarchical implications and better than any alternatives ("developing world", "Global South," etc.) suggests a set of conditions that are economic and social rather than geographical." [ [
"I might agree if there were a clear alternative to it." [ ]
"It's not offensive as much as it's out-of-date. We are very clearly one very interconnected world. But what about the term "developing world"? Is that offensive considering its use by that part of the world which is "over developed"?" [USA]
"Some find it objectionable but I do not." [India]
"It is one big world but with locations in need for expertise in HR & financial management as well as organization." [ ]
"When the Third World does not exist and it just becomes part of The World, then the term will be redundant." [Senegal]
"My choice is "Strongly Disagree" I also don't like the distinction of "developed" and "developing"." [ ]
"The term implies that the "third" world ranks lower overall than the "first" world. Perhaps the "majority world" better describes the reality!" [ ]
"Ask Professor Samir Amin, head of Third World Forum, or Martin Khor, head of Third World Network, or Shahid Qadir, Editor of Third World Quarterly what they think!" [France]
"It's a phrase that doesn't mean much in the abstract and is a hang over from the cold war - but it is convenient shorthand. It serves a communications purpose." [UK]
"What's the alternative? Also, I'm sure you are aware that your polling methodology - as well as the statement to which those interested are asked to respond - is quite sloppy." [ ]
"The term is not offensive, it describes the reality of a group of countries, but is old fashioned. Where is the second world today? We should replace the term Third world for a more precise expression." [Argentina]
"It's an identity, a 'brand,' not a pejorative." [Philippines]
"It's the fact that is offensive, not the descriptive language. Consider the term "cheap labor." The same reasoning applies. The term merely describes an unfortunate situation. It is not in and of itself offensive." [USA]
"Too much time and energy is wasted on finding the right definitions, while the situation stays the same. We better work on that." [Uganda]
"Of all the terms trying to describe the group of poorest countries, this is, in my view, the best available as it is not strongly linked to any derivative meaning - the first and second worlds are not referred to, and the relationships have changed since the term was coined, but we all know what it means. Other terms, such as developed, or developing, or less developed have more value-judgement attached, and South is clearly wrong." [England]
"It may be offensive to some, but that is not why it should not be used. It should not be used because it's anachronistic and doesn't mean much anymore. It implies a second world - which used to be the communist world. It also implies some sort of standard of development (or underdevelopment) among countries that are now vastly divergent in their responses to globalization." [ ]
"Term was invented by A. Sauvy in 1956 and refers to the victorious 3rd Estate of the National Assembly in revolutionary France, though often mistakenly used to refer to third place status (behind the West and East) in the Cold War world. Your query is invalid unless the sense in which the term has been employed is specified!" [UK]
"Since there does not seem to be a first or second world, the term is meaningless. All that matters is that people in more prosperous countries are made more aware of conditions in poverty-sticken nations. Any label that brings this to their attention is valid." [UK/Senegal]
"As I heard at a lecture in the Sorbonne in 1971, the Third World is only third in arrogance - Personally, i think thIre are more than three stages of economic development, and the lexicon of public transportation is inappropriate." [ ]
"Words have no meaning, it is we who give meaning to words. The term Third World is not offensive but it meant to be judging by its usage. In any case, the term has been misapplied. The so-called Third World is actually and logically the First World and the so-termed First World, the Third World. Traditional Society is the First World. Any life lived differently moves into another world. How did we ever get to begin counting from three? There could be more than three worlds!" [Ghana]
"More, and more practical terms become offensive these days. Balkans Region in Europe does not want to be called Balkans Region either. Replacing label with another one won't change anything. Whatever we'll call them, they will remain a third world unless they'll do better economically. Too bad they don't feel offended by the fact of being international welfare recipient, poor economy, corruption, religious conflicts, etc. It's just a label that matters..." [ ]
"It's a translation error! The term was coined in French as Tiers Monde (One Third of the World), but it has since been mistranslated to mean third in order. No order is implied by Tiers Monde. (If so, it would have been Troisieme Monde). It was during the Cold War and the originator of the term noted simply that about 1/3 of the countries in the world were then neither capitalist nor communist but were uncertain of their political commitment. They were mostly the poor countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Why not keep the term for the historical insight if offers, but translate it correctly, as it was intended?" [Thailand]
"If 'Third World', as a fact, can be allowed to remain, why not allow the phrase to exist as well?" [India]
"While this term was first coined some 50 years ago to describe the unaligned nations of the world during the height of the cold war, it has devolved over time to denote the least wealthy nations on the planet. There are several other terms currently in use such as 'developing nations' and the 'global south'. However, in my view, the former term - developing nation - only underscores the fact that after 50 years those designated nations - like perennial adolescents - remain caught in some kind of time warp where maturity and development never arrive. By way of contrast, the global south, sounds like a tag line for a club med advertising campaign. I say keep using the term Third World because it is profoundly associated with what indeed is offensive about a global order that would allow such poverty and despair to continue on and on and on. Let us use this term until it no longer has meaning and the only way that will occur is if the poverty and despair is finally overcome." [Canada]
"It's not necessarily offensive except to the extent that it is inaccurate. For this reason alone, it should not be used." [USA]
"Whether a country is less or more "developed" than other is irrelevant, what matters is the intention behind name calling." [USA]
"Developing or under developing world is o.k." [Pakistan]
"Reality is no ofense." [Argentina]
"The Third World, The Developing World, The Undeveloped World, South vs North, they all denote a portion of the world that in a technologic sense is not as rich as other parts. We should not worry about the name, but try to build this portion of the world, so that it will no longer have a label like the above." [ ]
"The issue is not whether it is offensive or not but whether it is still relevant. The 2nd world was the communist block, now largely redundant." [UK]
"There is only one world. There is neither first or second world." [Bangladesh]
"Like most words, this phrase means whatever we want it to mean. It has proven a very useful term - and concept - and I can't see any advantage in trying to change it now." [ ]
"It is merely an indication of where a country fits in an ordinal ranking of economic/development status. I do not see it as judgmental, so should not be taken "personally"." [ ]
"Political correctness run amok, but "less developed" would be fine. It is correct and properly descriptive." [USA]
"Let us not look for problems where they do not exist. There are enough REAL issues to focus on." [ ]
"Doesnt bother me, good in terms of a reality check: I'm not white, poor, the first world will be biased against me." [Pakistan]
""A rose is a rose...." The offense, if any, is in the attitudes and the treatment, rarely in the name. One should only focus on a specific name or 'brand' in two circumstances: if it explicitly contains the attitude one wants to escape or if one is about to start a major attitudinal change campaign and feels that shifting to a new term will help move the underlying attitudes." [ ]
"It should be understood in its historical context in which it was used during the Cold War. As such it is not offensive." [Zimbabwe]
"Instead.. majority and minority or north/south should be used" [Pakistan]
"No matter what you call it, you are still referring to the same thing. No one has ever called out "third world" as an insult or a racial slur. It simply refers to the developmental state of a country. There is nothing derogatory or shameful in that. I think that people should spend less time worrying about name descriptions and worry more about how to improve the "third world" countries so that term is no longer neccessary. All "political correctness" does is draw focus away from the ultimate goal. "A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Changing the words will not fix the problems." [ ]
"The third world as a term is inaccurate, bunching together countries that are very different. If it is the third, what is the second? As a term, it is misleading and provides false comfort." [UK]
"The third world as a term is inaccurate, buncching together countries that are very different. If it is the third, what is the second? As a term, it is misleading and provides false comfort." [UK]
"To me, it's neutral." [ ]
"Any term of this kind must be tested to determine what it conveys. For example, in working on an anti-tobacco campaign in Toronto, the experts preferred the term "Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)" to the more common "second=hand smoke." In focus testing, we determined that the vast majority of people we wanted to communicate with used the latter term. Therefore our campaign materials used the term "second hand smoke" because it was best understood by those we hoped to communicate with. "Third world" needs to be tested to see if it has negative, neutral of positive connotations with those who use it and among those receivers of communication who need to be reached. "Third word"/"Tiers monde" has no negative connotations for me, but I wonder about what it conveys to those in the "developing world." I think any term needs to be focus tested to ensure that it is not offensive and elicits, in the receiver of communication, an accurate image or summary of what the communicator wishes to convey." [Canada]
"As a citizen of a "First" (or is it "Second"?) world country, I feel that I have no right commenting on the general offensiveness of this term. I can only imagine that if I were a citizen of a "Third" world country, I would find the term very offensive...but I cannot know this. I find this a very interesting question and am very curious to know the response." [USA]
"Más que concepto se lo utiliza como una adjetivación económica para señalar cierto grado de pobreza en las diferentes naciones, pero también se lo ha utilizado como reconociento de lo que 'son' esas naciones." [Ecuador]
"Insofar as the term suggests some inherent superiority of first world peoples or first world cultures/societies, I find it objectionable. Also, it suggests that the third world should be moving towards the first, when perhaps another type of society, combining the best of both the "advanced' and the "folk," is what all should be striving for. However, we should be careful about being too politically correct. The word does have meaning. But sensitivity is important. I just can't decide on this one." [USA]
"Every word becomes unfashionable and so offensive after a while if it is describing a situation which is offensive, then it's time to change the word used - those who should decide are the ones it is used about, not the ones who use it." [Belgium]
"Perhaps more outmoded than offensive, since the capitalist and communist worlds that were once 1st and 2nd are so changed." [ ]
"It's an historical anachronism based on Cold War politics. Without the Cold War, it has little meaning." [ ]
"The point of view seems to be the operative criteria. From a "third world" perspective, the term is offensive. From "first and second world" perspectives, it is descriptive. Complicating matters is the arrogance of first and second world entities, who view themselves as the standard. Perhaps there are more aspects of life to be considered than technology and material wealth." [Canada]
"I don't think of it as a "ranking" - I don't know what the first or second world is anyway-so I don't find it offensive on that level. However, I am troubled by its implied "us and them" mentality, and I find the terms "developed world" and "developing" or "less developed" troubling for the same reasons. I am also troubled by names and definitions that are based on economic capacity, and which ignore remarkable social, cultural developments. I think we have to find new terminology that implies a sense of global responsibility and that helps us to find commonalities and ways to cooperate and collaborate, without detracting from the individual strengths and achievements of individual nations." [Canada]
"More offensive than words are attittudes." [Argentina]
"I worry sometimes that we are so "hung up" on being politically correct, that we end up obscuring meaning. On one hand, I might not want to be described as a "third world" citizen. On the other hand, we need language to describe reality. If a group of people are "third" in terms of their opportunities, food security, etc., we need to draw attention to that. The problem is, I guess, that we invent these terms with goodwill, then corrupt them." [Canada]
"Calling it offensive is one way to get rid of it. But why bother, since it's dying a natural death. The contemporary equivalent of the ancient mapmakers' "here there be dragons", the term signifies more about the speaker/writer than its object. But right now I've got bigger fish to fry: After I figure out what it means, do I, or do I not hyphenate "post[-]colonial"?" [Botswana]
"And replace it with what? another equally inappropriate phrase?" [ ]
"The term is relevant when used in a retrospective sense but the use of 'Third World' can permanently or wrongly put a country in the wrong slot inspite of any visible economic progress." [India]
"When used to refer to non-aligned neutrality or independance, the term '3rd World' may be empowering." [ ]
"There is some implication of first (place) being better, but that's also implied in less-developed or developing." [ ]
"What is an alternative term that describes an impoverished country?" [ ]
"Have never thought about until now.... Another term might be more appropriate." [Canada]
"Not offensive but outdated." [ ]
"What are the measures used to categorise a country as a third world?" [New Zealand]
- Log in to post comments