I agree with Jayne. After you begin deconstructing the language, you
realize the political and social implications behind terms that are
seemingly benign. Perhaps reading feminist writing from a particular area
of the world you are interested in, would provide more answers. Lumping
contries together under one verbal umbrellla may be inappropriate.
On Thu, 18
May 1995, Jayne S Docherty wrote:
> Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 13:33:32 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: re:north/south etc.
>
> On Thu, 18 May 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > what about the term "colonial" or "previously colonized" countries. obviously
> > this doesn't work for all countries. but many have at one time "belonged"
> > to another country (meaning they were probably not 'developed' in the
> > beginning) and since gaining freedom, do not perhaps have the resources
> > to become developed. this was a term we used in a women and lit. class when
> > we were dealing with india. any thoughts? robin
>
>
> Sure, I think this is a pretty good descriptor. The benefit being that
> it actually points out the human role in relative development and reminds
> people that these countries are not in their current situation from some
> fluke of nature or some internal flaw. Also, we should keep in mind that
> these countries were not "undeveloped" when they were colonized. Some of
> them had advanced (although non-western) social, cultural and
> economic systems. They were, in fact, deliberately undeveloped by
> colonial powers, so that they could play a role as providers of raw
> materials and that it was on their backs that the "developed" countries
> became developed!
>
> Jayne
>
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri May 19 08:00:45 1995
via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.950519145826.832;
From: J M Brough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 14:59:21 GMT
Subject: re:north/south etc.
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Confirm-Reading-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-pmrqc: 1
I still think that "colonial" is just as inaccurate as "north" or
"south". The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were all
colonies. Hong Kong still is (for another two years) but is very
highly developed and industrialized. If we mean "poor" why can't we
say so?
June Brough.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri May 19 22:08:18 1995
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 00:10:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: re:north/south etc.
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 19 May 1995, J M Brough wrote:
> I still think that "colonial" is just as inaccurate as "north" or
> "south". The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were all
> colonies. Hong Kong still is (for another two years) but is very
> highly developed and industrialized. If we mean "poor" why can't we
> say so?
>
> June Brough.
June,
You seem to object to every term that has been offered because it is not
100% accurate and because it aggregates and lumps countries around a
single characteristic. But, that is a drawback to any language. We
cannot avoid it or else we end up silencing ourselves because we can only
speak of "particulars" and not draw any conclusions or comparisons about
generalities.
I agree that none of these terms is "correct". Perhaps the trick is to
use multiple terms which highlight different characteristics which
distinguish countries from one another and set up the broad divisions
that we can "see" even if we cannot "name" them. If we move around among
different terms we remind ourselves that these distinctions between
countries are multi-faceted AND they are CONSTRUCTED concepts which only
approximate the "reality" of the world.
You ask why we don't just say "poor" if that is what we mean. But, poor
is only one more constructed way of expressing what we think we see in
the world. It carries with it a great many implications. The problem with
simply
saying "poor" is that poor is a relative term -- also poor in what
sense and by whose standards? Because our entire language has become so
dominated by metaphors and terms taken from the field of economics, the
implication is that they lack the so-called economic "necessities"
that we in "rich" countries have. But, this is only one way of measuring
well-being and "wealth".
Not only does this not reflect "reality" since there are other ways of
measuring well being and wealth; but it becomes a crippling language
which stifles our imaginations and ability to create new ways of being in
the world. How does a rich/poor distinction among countries help us
envision
different standards of "development" or "wealth" or "well-being"? And,
how does it help us achieve these?
Jayne
