4 ms·

'Global south' is just the latest in a fraught space where every term seems to eventually get dragged down. Originally it was 'third world' that started off as

'Global south' is just the latest in a fraught space where every term seems to eventually get dragged down. Originally it was 'third world' that started off as a positive, aspirational term but became a derisive term. Then it was 'developing country' that was supposed to be not judgmental but became so. I'm sure 'global south' will go the same way.

Auracle 1y ago
It’s funny, because on the face of it, it seems the worst of all. You might as well just say “dark skinned countries,” since that’s what the term is effectively getting at.
- trhway 1y ago
  >You might as well just say “dark skinned countries,” Argentine is 97% European descent. Where is non-white countries like Japan and South Korea are in the Global North. It isn't about race/skin color. The "Third World" was well suitable until Soviet Block (Second World) collapsed with most of its components going either into the First/Western World or into the Third World thus resulting in the world being partitioned just into 2 large parts with Russia+Belarus being the distant small 3rd, so small that it is just easier to count them into the First/Western style developed world especially considering that they both moved into capitalism losing that major trait - socialism - of the Second World. (Though 30+ years later Russia does more and more drift toward the former Third World, i.e Global South).
  - Auracle 1y ago
    We all known Japanese and Korean people are white by proxy in a lot of people's minds. My point wasn't about the grouping itself though, just the term global south effectively being "worse" than the previous terms. For the northern hemisphere, where most people live, south = darker skin.
mort96 1y ago
The "global south" is a term which originates in writings about the vietnam war in the 60s. It's by no means a new term. Use third world country if you want, but at least in my mind, the terms "first/second/third world" are more tied to which hegemony you fall under, where the first world is the US hegemony, and the third world is without a hegemon. "First world" is kinda synonymous with "the west". To me, the term "global south" communicates that it's being contrasted against all of "the north", both east and west, while using the term "third world" communicates that the context makes a distinction between "the west" ("first world") and the old eastern bloc ("second world") somehow relevant. Some "second world" countries such as China are also part of the "global south". I'm sure there are people who use the term "global south" simply because they perceive it to be less judgemental somehow, but I might've used it in this context because "third world" communicates something different. Honestly though, I would've probably just used the term "non-western" (maybe "non-first-world"?), since that's the distinction the article actually draws. Eastern Europe is also affected here, after all. Or maybe I would've drawn the distinction at "US" and "non-US", since Europeans don't necessarily want their writing to sound American either and the old US hegemony seems to be on its last legs.

Auracle 1y ago

It’s funny, because on the face of it, it seems the worst of all. You might as well just say “dark skinned countries,” since that’s what the term is effectively getting at.

trhway 1y ago
>You might as well just say “dark skinned countries,” Argentine is 97% European descent. Where is non-white countries like Japan and South Korea are in the Global North. It isn't about race/skin color. The "Third World" was well suitable until Soviet Block (Second World) collapsed with most of its components going either into the First/Western World or into the Third World thus resulting in the world being partitioned just into 2 large parts with Russia+Belarus being the distant small 3rd, so small that it is just easier to count them into the First/Western style developed world especially considering that they both moved into capitalism losing that major trait - socialism - of the Second World. (Though 30+ years later Russia does more and more drift toward the former Third World, i.e Global South).
- Auracle 1y ago
  We all known Japanese and Korean people are white by proxy in a lot of people's minds. My point wasn't about the grouping itself though, just the term global south effectively being "worse" than the previous terms. For the northern hemisphere, where most people live, south = darker skin.

mort96 1y ago

The "global south" is a term which originates in writings about the vietnam war in the 60s. It's by no means a new term. Use third world country if you want, but at least in my mind, the terms "first/second/third world" are more tied to which hegemony you fall under, where the first world is the US hegemony, and the third world is without a hegemon. "First world" is kinda synonymous with "the west". To me, the term "global south" communicates that it's being contrasted against all of "the north", both east and west, while using the term "third world" communicates that the context makes a distinction between "the west" ("first world") and the old eastern bloc ("second world") somehow relevant. Some "second world" countries such as China are also part of the "global south". I'm sure there are people who use the term "global south" simply because they perceive it to be less judgemental somehow, but I might've used it in this context because "third world" communicates something different. Honestly though, I would've probably just used the term "non-western" (maybe "non-first-world"?), since that's the distinction the article actually draws. Eastern Europe is also affected here, after all. Or maybe I would've drawn the distinction at "US" and "non-US", since Europeans don't necessarily want their writing to sound American either and the old US hegemony seems to be on its last legs.