Dave A. Chakrabarti wrote: > > Hi Vasu, Linda, Beth, > > I'm not sure I agree with you here. Why does "Third World" imply such > negative connotations? It may just be a difference in how we > understand the semantics, but I've also used "Third World" the way a > geographer or economist uses it, i.e. to mean "developing". > Personally, I've often found greater beauty and more humanity in the > third world than in more developed nations. I would certainly never > use it in a negative sense...my emphasis in meaning has always been > "developing, perhaps in alternative ways" rather than "underdeveloped" > or "backwards".
The problem, perhaps, is not how you write it but how it is read. I'll offer another perspective, if you're interested. People in nations that are not considered 'developed nations' usually have identities and as such don't appreciate being lumped together. The problems of Trinidad and Tobago are not the same as those of Tunisia, though there are similarities. But people who don't seem to care about those difference lump countries together in 'North' and 'South' (penguins or no penguins?), 'developed' and 'developing' (which makes no sense, since it implies countries that are ahead are static instead of dynamic), and 'First World' and 'Third World'. Third World, to me, means a nation considered so backward that it didn't rate second. I'm sure that's not what you mean, but I am also sure that I don't know what you mean when you or others use the phrase. Developed and Developing seem like the best ones to use, so I use those, but still saying that a nation is developing does not tell me anything about the nation. Trinidad and Tobago is considered a developing nation, and yet it has a lot of money flowing into it (don't ask me where it goes). If you tell me that the United States is a First World nation, I can easily point out areas in the U.S. that are not First World. These broad brush strokes are generalities that do not really explain anything, at least to me. Both the Great Kiskedee, the 'Plantain' and the Bananaquit are birds that have yellow on them in Trinidad and Tobago. Talking about a yellow bird here would not tell you much about the bird that I am speaking of. Mistaking a Scot, an Irishman and an Englishman is considered an insult though the accents are not different to the new casual listener. I'm in the nth world myself, and I have no idea what all of these worlds are about. I do, however, recognize countries with common problems. 'Infrastructure poor nations' tells me that the nations in the set are infrastructure poor. Or I could just say, "Some of my best friends are from the Third World", which goes over really well in the third world - sort of like walking into a predominantly xyz neighbourhood and saying, "Some of my best friends are xyz!" I'd like to see people write about the context of the level of development in discussion. All this Third World, developing nation, global South stuff is rather segregational and I believe it may even be a factor in reinforcing the problems being discussed. Telling someone that their country is a Third World country can make people defensive, and I'm almost certain that this is not what people want to do. So if it hurts when we touch someone in a wound, why do we keep sticking our finger in it and wondering why some get upset? But that's just me, just my humble opinion, and your mileage may vary. That's all I have on this. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.knowprose.com http://www.easylum.net http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Coming on January 1st, 2006: http://www.OpenDepth.com "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
