John D. Giorgis spake on a Tablet of e-Stone:
> I should point out that term "Third World" is very politically incorrect.
> The distinctions are developed world, nations in transition, and
developing
> world.
ho decides such things?
It can't be the hite House otherise it ould have read Third orld etc.
Should it be exploiting world, nations in transition, and exploited world?
Or perhaps:
We've got lots of horrific weapons world, we're trying to catch up world,
and thanks to youse guys we've just got enough to kill our own populace
world.
Or maybe:
Upper class world, middle class world and lower class world.
Your politically correct distinctions convey the message that one day all
worlds will be developed implying some sort of equality or progress whereas
the concept of first world, third world relates simply to wealth. By
re-describing the first world as developed and the third as developing
simply on the basis of material possessions conveniently ignores such
anomalies as Cuba having a higher literacy rate and more doctors per head of
popln than us and that the US is one of only six countries to have executed
juvenile offenders. [The five other countries are Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Of the 19 juvenile offender executions since 1990,
the U.S. is responsible for 13.] What does your politically correct
definition mean by "developed"?
It also implies a progression from third to first hiding the possibility
that nations in transition such as Iraq might be sliding down the scale with
our help, nay, insistence.
Bob.
