3 ms·

I’ve always found the evolution of third world very odd. How does something go from countries that are not Cold War participants to developing countries? I tend

I’ve always found the evolution of third world very odd. How does something go from countries that are not Cold War participants to developing countries? I tend to thinking it in the original context and often find myself misunderstanding people when they use the term. I know definitions change, but it seems like an odd transition.

brezelgoring 4y ago
I considered this for a while, being from Uruguay (a member of that great category of countries) and for me, it generally means geopolitically and even economically weightless countries. It might be pessimistic but it -feels- like whatever happens here, be it coups, economics experiments, great innovations and the like - does not impact or even reach the rest of the world. One (mildly) rich Californian has more potential impact on the world than all of Latin America could ever have in the best of days.
jhbadger 4y ago
While I agree that the term is outdated and should just be replaced with "developing", "third world" always had the economic side to it. "First World" countries not only were the major Western powers in the Cold War, they also had the best standards of living. "Second World" countries, despite meaning the Soviet side, also meant countries with a lesser quality of life, where store shelves were constantly empty and people often had to wait hours in line to buy even basic staples like bread and meat. And yet for the most part people weren't starving (except for the Soviet famines in the 1930s or the Chinese one in the late 1950s). This wasn't the case for the "third world" countries not part of either bloc (mostly countries just achieving independence from colonialism) which often had the worst standards of living (largely because their economies, developed under colonialism, never developed a consumer economy as they were primarily geared towards export to the country that colonized them)
- qqtt 4y ago
  Thrid world didn't always have an economic side to it. Third world was coined as a delineation of cold war participation status - it had nothing to do with economics. Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, and Finland were all included in the original definition of third world, but now no longer fit the modern definition of developing nation.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    There always was the notion that first-world countries tended to be economically liberal with market economies, whilst second-world ones had controlled economies. High living standards were associated with the first group, for good and bad reasons (and propaganda). And then there are always outliers. Though your example all have moved firmly to the first world since the 1950s.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jacobolus 4y ago
How did the word "villain" go from meaning "peasant" to meaning "main antagonist of the story"? This is a very natural kind of transition for words with negative connotations.
- netsharc 4y ago
  Huh, TIL. It's related to the word "villa": From Medieval Latin villanus "farmhand," from Latin villa "country house, farm". Source: https://www.etymonline.com/word/villain https://www.etymonline.com/word/villain
saiya-jin 4y ago
Countries not participating in Cold war? Then ie Switzerland or Monaco and so on were 3rd world, top of the world when it comes to wealth per capita. Not a definition that most people would agree with
lesuorac 4y ago
I always kind of assumed thats why they weren't Cold War participants. If you don't have a "developed" economy you're not as useful of a trade/etc partner than a country with a developed economy. Or your country is basically semi-colonizable then it'll just be semi-colonized instead (i.e. parts of your country become a gated community for the oil field employees).

brezelgoring 4y ago

I considered this for a while, being from Uruguay (a member of that great category of countries) and for me, it generally means geopolitically and even economically weightless countries. It might be pessimistic but it -feels- like whatever happens here, be it coups, economics experiments, great innovations and the like - does not impact or even reach the rest of the world. One (mildly) rich Californian has more potential impact on the world than all of Latin America could ever have in the best of days.

jhbadger 4y ago

While I agree that the term is outdated and should just be replaced with "developing", "third world" always had the economic side to it. "First World" countries not only were the major Western powers in the Cold War, they also had the best standards of living. "Second World" countries, despite meaning the Soviet side, also meant countries with a lesser quality of life, where store shelves were constantly empty and people often had to wait hours in line to buy even basic staples like bread and meat. And yet for the most part people weren't starving (except for the Soviet famines in the 1930s or the Chinese one in the late 1950s). This wasn't the case for the "third world" countries not part of either bloc (mostly countries just achieving independence from colonialism) which often had the worst standards of living (largely because their economies, developed under colonialism, never developed a consumer economy as they were primarily geared towards export to the country that colonized them)

qqtt 4y ago
Thrid world didn't always have an economic side to it. Third world was coined as a delineation of cold war participation status - it had nothing to do with economics. Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, and Finland were all included in the original definition of third world, but now no longer fit the modern definition of developing nation.
- kergonath 4y ago
  There always was the notion that first-world countries tended to be economically liberal with market economies, whilst second-world ones had controlled economies. High living standards were associated with the first group, for good and bad reasons (and propaganda). And then there are always outliers. Though your example all have moved firmly to the first world since the 1950s.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jacobolus 4y ago

How did the word "villain" go from meaning "peasant" to meaning "main antagonist of the story"? This is a very natural kind of transition for words with negative connotations.

netsharc 4y ago
Huh, TIL. It's related to the word "villa": From Medieval Latin villanus "farmhand," from Latin villa "country house, farm". Source: https://www.etymonline.com/word/villain https://www.etymonline.com/word/villain

saiya-jin 4y ago

Countries not participating in Cold war? Then ie Switzerland or Monaco and so on were 3rd world, top of the world when it comes to wealth per capita. Not a definition that most people would agree with

lesuorac 4y ago

I always kind of assumed thats why they weren't Cold War participants. If you don't have a "developed" economy you're not as useful of a trade/etc partner than a country with a developed economy. Or your country is basically semi-colonizable then it'll just be semi-colonized instead (i.e. parts of your country become a gated community for the oil field employees).