4 ms·

just such a bizarre thing to see for a not-3rd world state Unfortunately I'm not sure how valid this couching is any more. A lot of what was historically perce

just such a bizarre thing to see for a not-3rd world state Unfortunately I'm not sure how valid this couching is any more. A lot of what was historically perceived as "third world" started from a POV that was 1950s - 1970s America, where the rest of the world was still either under communism or recovering from the ashes of WWII. Today, there are many hundreds of cities & states in Asia that far outshine many US and European cities & states in "developedness". The problem is that the leadership in these Western places refuse to realise they can't keep relying on historical achievement to compete in the 21st Century. Hawaii (and others) need to buck up.

avgcorrection 5y ago
Historical achievement? History is written by the victors.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Then 'perception of historical achievement'?
- dylan604 5y ago
  Which is an historical achievement in and of itself is it not?
  - avgcorrection 5y ago
    Touché
bluGill 5y ago
> where the rest of the world was still either under communism or recovering from the ashes of WWII. That is history: English is a living language, and today first world mean rich industrialized nation (developed), and third world means poor industrialized nation. Those Asian nations in todays English are first world countries even though they weren't Nato or Warsaw pact which is what third world meant in 1950-1970.
- dylan604 5y ago
  In my day to day, I have never understood 3rd world to mean non-NATO or non-Warsaw pact member states or anything specific to WWII. 3rd world status has always been understood by me to being a state of development on things like infrastructure, technology, medicine, gov't, etc.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    I'm guessing you are younger than 40? In my school they made a big deal about this, but it was already clear in popular use it wasn't about NATO/Warsaw pact.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      You'd be guessing wrong. I'm definitely over 40 for some time now. I'm confused now on what you're saying. Now, you're saying in popular use it wasn't about it, but yet you claimed earlier it was.
      - stormbrew 5y ago
        My interpretation: if you're 40 or older then (within some other constraints like where you live, etc.) your education was likely colored by cold war propaganda which still somewhat weakly insisted on dividing the world into 3 nearly exclusive spheres of influence (American, Russian, and Non-Aligned aka 1st, 2nd, 3rd), and that may have shown up in your education even though the concept was already pretty much already obsolete in the 80s. I'm around that age, and Canadian, and I think it was at least brought up as the 'true' meaning of third world in my social studies classes, but it wasn't how people used it in regular use already. Fwiw I think it's a term that there isn't really a lot of use in preserving, especially since its original meaning is so divorced from current reality. Current parlance for what people actually mean when they say third world is usually "developing world" which is in some ways better (it at least implies it's something that changes over time) but also carries a lot of awkward colonialist baggage.

avgcorrection 5y ago

Historical achievement? History is written by the victors.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Then 'perception of historical achievement'?
dylan604 5y ago
Which is an historical achievement in and of itself is it not?
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  Touché

bluGill 5y ago

> where the rest of the world was still either under communism or recovering from the ashes of WWII. That is history: English is a living language, and today first world mean rich industrialized nation (developed), and third world means poor industrialized nation. Those Asian nations in todays English are first world countries even though they weren't Nato or Warsaw pact which is what third world meant in 1950-1970.

dylan604 5y ago
In my day to day, I have never understood 3rd world to mean non-NATO or non-Warsaw pact member states or anything specific to WWII. 3rd world status has always been understood by me to being a state of development on things like infrastructure, technology, medicine, gov't, etc.
- bluGill 5y ago
  I'm guessing you are younger than 40? In my school they made a big deal about this, but it was already clear in popular use it wasn't about NATO/Warsaw pact.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    You'd be guessing wrong. I'm definitely over 40 for some time now. I'm confused now on what you're saying. Now, you're saying in popular use it wasn't about it, but yet you claimed earlier it was.
    - stormbrew 5y ago
      My interpretation: if you're 40 or older then (within some other constraints like where you live, etc.) your education was likely colored by cold war propaganda which still somewhat weakly insisted on dividing the world into 3 nearly exclusive spheres of influence (American, Russian, and Non-Aligned aka 1st, 2nd, 3rd), and that may have shown up in your education even though the concept was already pretty much already obsolete in the 80s. I'm around that age, and Canadian, and I think it was at least brought up as the 'true' meaning of third world in my social studies classes, but it wasn't how people used it in regular use already. Fwiw I think it's a term that there isn't really a lot of use in preserving, especially since its original meaning is so divorced from current reality. Current parlance for what people actually mean when they say third world is usually "developing world" which is in some ways better (it at least implies it's something that changes over time) but also carries a lot of awkward colonialist baggage.