Beetle Ball Realness
"You’re beautiful, Baby!"
Today is the day hunties!!!
He has Monsters inc. on his shirt.
She has Nemo on her dress.
Violet has murder in her eyes.
Books have a way of making you homesick for a place you have never been.
how did steve and nat walk around that mall with just a hoodie and not get recognized i mean if i was in that mall i would have been like “do you smell that? i smell freedom. i smell steve rogers”
[eagle screeches in the background]
castle rewatch: little girl lost
First 3rd world is a shitty term.
I mean no one is disputing industrialized countries’ privileges’ and shit or whatever. uhm but … there are definitely people in Brasil who have shoes who know what poverty is. ………….just like there are people in the states who have shoes who know what poverty is.
But I guess:
Having shoes = Can’t know what poverty is
One of my friends immigrated from a developing country and she states that “3rd world” is really problematic.
It has postcolonial connotations and also asserts an American imperialist view of the world (i.e. dividing the world into sectors which are American-centric and lumping various nation states into them).
She told me “developing nations” or “developing regions” is a better term because it captures problems within those regions without lumping in countries which are also developed.
First of all, before I can begin- Brazil is quickly becoming a global superpower and has a GDP very similar to Australia’s; a country I assume you would not consider “third world” because they are a British Commonwealth and speak english.
This is also a good time to point out the “#FirstWorldProblems” trend is also problematic- for along the same lines. the “first world” is not the only place with internet access - Those email scams you receive saying you have 5billion USD sitting in a Swiss bank account, and all you need to do to access it is give them $200 and/or your bank account number? Those largely originate in Sub-Saharan Africa; “third world”. The “first world” is not the only place with Starbucks- Brazil has Starbucks.
And of all the economic signifiers of poverty- you choose SHOES? Shoes have been something cultures have been weaving and creating for ages, back when things were positively “primitive”.
Maybe use advanced infrastructure or global economic strength or military capability or the purchasing power of your money in the economy as a standard of what qualifies as poverty- not something so ridiculous as SHOES.
And besides that- just as the original responder said, there are Americans without shoes, and there are Americans with shoes. There are poor people (pretty much) in every country in the world.
And yeah- developed/developing is the only dichotomy I’ve heard that most accurately encompasses the situation.
All of the above, and:
1st world/ 2nd world/ 3rd world dates to the Cold War; with the US, Canada, West Europe, Australia and a few islands making up the first. The USSR made up the second world. 3rd world was everyone else. So it definitely has colonial and postcolonial conotiations, and should be criticized.
If we’re going by economics, the more common term for the era is Developed Countries (DCs) and Least/Lesser-Developed Countries. Alternatively, High-Income countries, Middle-Income countries, low-income countries.
—There are going to be flaws with any tripartite division that purports to account for over 200 countries, especially when those countries are as diverse as China, Luxembourg, Haiti, and Yemen, for example.
So yeah, first world/third world distinction is a shitty awful propaganda racist neoliberal-justifying genocide-tolerating way to describe the world.
I have definitely come across people from “developing countries” that take issue with the term “developing country”, and I assume that they’d take issue with low, middle, and high income as terms as well. I know that no big grouping can be accurate, so I’ve tried to just drop all of them from my casual speaking and writing.
It’s harder to make sweeping generalizations now, but hey, what’re you gonna do.
Tldr but if it wasn’t address first second and third worlds refer to allegiances during the Cold War not industrial status.
What? Do people think everyone on tumblr is from “first world countries”?? I actualy am from Brazil, and this is very bizarre to me, like we don’t exist. Also, shoes? Yeah, shoes are fucking important and everyone who wants them should have them, but it is definitely an ignorant way to determine poverty. I’d guess a lot of homeless people have shoes. People who can’t afford food can have a pair of shoes. Anyway, most brazilians have shoes (lots of people who don’t though, but far from the majority). Even fucking poor people have shoes. People on tumblr should stop using others as poverty fantasies and acting like there aren’t poor people where they live.
so we know all these simple distinctions (1st world/3rd, developed/ing, etc) are obv pretty arbitrary. Each one has its supporters and detractors, for important reasons. But I tend to think that there’s limitations to thinking in a nation-centric way, because you miss key issues in power dynamics. I’m wondering if folks are familiar with the ideas in world systems theory? It’s pretty much as reductive as these other concepts, but I still think there is some value in the idea of core, semi-periphery, and periphery, depending on the what is being discussed. It takes the primary focus off nations (not excluding them at all) and refocuses it on power and economic/social capital flows. Anyway, might be useful.
Personally, even tho “developed/ing” nations wording is the convention right now, I think it’s super fucked up because it infantilizes economically poor nations and is also ahistorical, in that it erases histories and influence of vast economically robust civilizations that existed prior to conquest and colonization.
Oh, hey, wait, let me just add to this:
The term Third World was actually first coined by Jawaharlal Neru, the first prime minister of India at the Bandung Conference in 1955, which was a hella cool conference that one fourth of the world attended. The reason they gathered was because they were deciding what to do about the emerging superpowers (i.e. Russia and the United States) as they headed towards the Cold War.
Originally, what the term Third World meant was this rad non-alignment party where those who agreed to be part of the non-alignment party were saying, in order to avoid destruction of their countries if they aligned with either Communism or Anti-Communism, that they would band together to form their own parties and their own opinions and their own decisions on how to govern their countries.
The term Third World was originally a positive one, originally claimed by countries participating in the non-alignment party, and the formation of the term, and of the party, is a fantastic story that so often gets overlooked in textbooks.
Unfortunately, the term Third World has been commandeered by elitist white media with fetishes of the “poor country”, so now it has come to mean something entirely different and has completely erased in mainstream media the Bandung Conference and the non-alignment party and the stance they took.
I do agree that Third World is now, sadly, because of this, problematic because the media uses it to reinforce the stereotype that Third World equals poor via the coverage that they show, but it needs to be pointed out that the origins of the term Third World and the Bandung Conference are important points of history and politically fascinating.
You can read more here, including Nehru’s original speech declaring the non-alignment movement:
me about my blog
Someone add the entire opening credits from the last season of Roseanne