By our standards (by the goals and values which we prioritize), the "developing" world IS "civilizationally inferior". Human capital, international development, foreign aid - none of these concepts would be necessary if it wasn't.
Yes, language can be a tool of oppression and prejudice (although more often perhaps it's just a reflection of it). But trying to erase any distinction or hierarchy or value judgement in language is an equally political goal, and it can be equally false. Westerners often like to pretend that there's a kind of innate worthiness to ALL cultures. Of course, this conceit falls apart as soon as they begin talking about ACTUAL foreign cultures, or history... or when they must choose a place to live.
By the standards of the modern world, the developed world is a safer, richer, easier, more opportunity-laden setting in which to build a life. It is better, and the developing world is worse. I'm not defending the term "third world" but it shouldn't be abandoned simply because it generalizes or stigmatizes or makes value judgements. Value judgements are necessary and unavoidable. Some things (cultures, beliefs, people) are simply better than others.
I’d like to quote the first three words in your comment: “By our standards.”
The Japanese, for instance, believe themselves to be descended from the sun goddess Amaterasu. By their standards, we might be seen as uncultured barbarians—people with an inferior culture, religion, and way of life. They even have a word for non-Japanese: gaijin, which roughly translates to “foreign barbarian.” Although the term is less common today, it remains in use in some circles. When some Japanese visit New York City, they often scoff at the dirty streets, the homelessness, and the general chaos of the city. Compared to Tokyo, New York can seem like a cyberpunk dystopia, measured by almost any metric except the sheer volume of money flowing through Wall Street.
So what, exactly, is “superior” about the dilapidated state of San Francisco—a city in a developed country—compared to Shanghai, which is technically in a developing country? By most reasonable metrics, Shanghai outperforms San Francisco in terms of infrastructure, cleanliness, public transportation, and overall order. Yet we continue to frame these places through a Western lens, reinforcing outdated notions of superiority.
Coming back to your point about “our standards”—yes, I get it. But that’s precisely the issue: it’s not universal, it’s your standard. And by the same standard, some places labelled “developing” are outperforming so-called developed nations—China being a prime example. It's often labelled as “developing” in Western discourse, yet in many respects, it's operating at a level that surpasses much of the West, excluding perhaps the United States.
We can debate these finer points endlessly, but that's not the core issue here. The real problem lies in how terms like “third world” are used—not analytically, but pejoratively. The phrase often functions less as a descriptor of economic status or values and more like a slur, much like ethnic insults. People who use it aren’t evaluating GDP or infrastructure; they’re using it to demean, to imply someone is lesser or inferior.
Do you honestly think someone considers cultural context when they hurl the n-word at a Black person? Of course not. Similarly, when a Westerner sees an Asian person eating with their hands instead of using cutlery, they often jump to condescending conclusions: that this person must come from a “third world” country too poor or backwards to afford utensils. There's no consideration of cultural differences, just a snap judgment across the board based on their perspectives, values, and everything in between.
And that kind of linear thinking about the world is the cause of many conflicts, unresolved or otherwise.
But it’s not my standard. It’s yours, it’s that of the Japanese, and it’s that of EVERY educated person who might be referring to the developing world.
I’m not saying that Western cultures don’t have massive flaws, but by OUR standards they are better cultures. When I say ‘our’ I’m referring to every educated person who might be involved in these conversations. The exceptions are so rare as to be negligible. People often point to family structures or norms or cultural practices as evidence of cultural equivalence, but we don’t really believe this. Wealth and civil equality and opportunity simply matter more to us… ALL of us.
The conceit that there isn’t a consensus about what represents better and worse cultural practices and cultures is just empty pretension-a gesture that educated people make to feel enlightened. Such people’s real opinions and values are better indicated by their actions and their decisions than their words. Unless they’re building career prospects or promoting international development or altruism (all themselves indicators of the cultural values I’m talking about) NONE of them choose to live in Gabon or Afghanistan. Wealth is better than poverty. Freedom is better than slavery. Education is better than ignorance. Societies that have more of the formers are better, by my standards and yours and everyone’s writing and thinking about geopolitics. It’s as close to a consensus as it’s possible to get. Pretending otherwise is like pretending that there’s no racial talent disparities, or pretending that men and women are equivalent (on average) in leadership and nurturing instinct and social aggression. They’re popular things to profess, but which no one actually believes.
'Wealth and civil equality and opportunity simply matter more to us… ALL of us.'
Actually, not quite universal. At the risk of generalisation, it's mostly a Western framework that holds these factors as sacrosanct and a marker of progress and civilisation.
East Asian cultures tend to value stability and often fall back on groupthink, and civil equality is regarded as part of the equation insofar as it serves the generation of wealth or acts as a guarantor of stability. If not, it is discarded entirely and not spoken about. Case in point with China (traditionally a third-world country, now regarded as a developing country), civil equality, liberty, and rights are (by Western standards) non-existent and not even part of the societal zeitgeist; it's all about making more money by whatever means necessary. The same can be said in Singapore, which, although moulded within a Western framework by its Cambridge-educated founder, sacrificed civil liberties for economic prosperity and societal stability, with the full support of its citizens, who don't seem to feel left out by their supposed (again, by western standards) lack of freedom.
Also, when it comes to wealth, it gets a bit sticky: are we talking obscene wealth, a la Musk, Bezos, and the likes of Goldman's CEO? Or are we talking wealth in a sense where people have a roof over their heads, enough food to eat, and enough to send their kids to school? Because the extreme pursuit of wealth is almost uniquely American, it is embedded and mythologised by the American Dream. China seems to buy into this to a certain extent, but when considering the Japanese and Europeans, wealth is only a consideration as long as their basic needs are met. Their respective systems (taxes, etc.) almost ensure that wealth inequality is small. That's why many Japanese and Europeans who prioritise wealth move either to the US or, to a certain extent, China. Also, many countries in the world are now capable of providing basic needs to many of their citizens, and though they don't all live in McMansions, they're doing ok, and many of these countries have citizens that are content to live and work in their respective countries without considering migrating to the supposed First World.
Let's agree to disagree at this point, as we seem to approach and perceive this subject from different angles and armed by our respective life experiences. I'm not saying that either of us is wrong; it's just tricky to reconcile the opposing perspectives. Cheers!
This bit is entirely b*llsh*t "By the standards of the modern world, the developed world is a safer, richer, easier, more opportunity-laden setting in which to build a life." Modernity itself is a disastrous outcome of capitalism and imperialism. Modernity is based on a great myth - the myth of Cheap Nature. Which then gives you all your stinking 1st world cheap energy, cheap food, cheap cloths, cheap transport, cheap this and that viz-a-viz entirely devalued Nature. Your argument about "distinction" - "hierarchy" and "value judgement" is entirely baseless. Why? Because all such European distinctions or hierarchies DO NOT EXIST in Nature. Do not exist outside Modernity, and those who live in Nature however primitive or savage, by your idiotic, erogenous, value system. We only get rich or powerful by exploiting Nature. Your value judgements are also an outcome capitalism and almost hedging Heteronormative Supremacy.
Everyone who talks like this (as you do) pursues education and status and financial security through those capitalist and heteronormative institutions using that technology. This isn’t even about national culture. I’m working class, and spent YEARS homeless. NO ONE in those situations expresses your ideas. I know nothing about you, and yet I will guess that you grew up in privilege and are rich in global terms. All of those ideas are abstractions, created by people with no experience of poverty and taught to people with no experience of poverty. Every decision, purchase, and career move you’ve made reflects the priority you place on capitalism and development and technology and liberal values. That’s my bet, anyway.
The paradox of modernity: oblivious, insanely-privileged, aristocrats using their smartphones to complain about capitalism and their unprecedented political and cultural liberty to complain about their society.
But your entire earlier argument has been debased by 1. Dialectic Materialism 2. Ecology. Whatever you are or not, were or will be has nothing to do with the argument of 1st world - 3rd world. You fail to see, understand and hence accept how the 1st world came about in the first place. Keep blaming a set of people, because eventually that is what gives you meaning, as any pathetic surrogate activity does. Adios!
Perhaps you understand it for your own benefit and not for any usefully objective truth. Unable to do anything but Lol thru life. Try again mediocrity.
So you espouse speech fascism and silencing the Truth, no matter how painful- triggering delusion & zero improvement where non-performers never improve without the needed criticism and peer pressure. This actually is evil- keeps mediocre countries mediocre. Be proud of your culture even though it sux. Be proud even when most of your country yearns to emigrate. Encourage host countries to virtue-signal accommodate immigrants by adopting the customs of inferior cultures, instead of mandating them to assimilate & adopt the better habits that contributed to making the host nation a world leader and immigration magnet.
Bravo. Make all cultures equally mediocre / discourage individual progress.
I will be kind and assume you either read or commented on the wrong article.
Nowhere did I mention immigration, cultural clashes, or virtue signalling. The topic is linguistic connotations, not the clash of civilisations or assimilation. Those terms do not appear in the article at all.
However, in the spirit of the First Amendment, I will allow your comment to remain. After all, the only way we can foster discussion for a better tomorrow is to hear out all and any opinions, regardless of how ludicrous or out of touch they happen to be.
That's my culture, rooted in the country where I was born.
I'm old enough that I still think of "Third World" in its original sense. But you are right about how that has changed. Ad I never liked "developing" for the reasons you describe.
In my own writing about economic issues, I just say "poor countries", just as I refer to "poor people", wherever they live. I don't agree that saying that a country or person is poor reduces them to a number - it is just an objective fact about them. And (most of the time) the best way to help poor people, or poor countries is to give them money.
> Among the more popular replacements is “Global South”, a term which, at the very least, has the good manners not to imply intrinsic backwardness.
Neither does "Third World". In acquired the connotation of backwardness because the thing it refers to is in fact backwards. Any other term you put in its place will also swiftly acquire the connotations of its referent.
You sound like you're not familiar with the euphemism treadmill.
Pray tell, what do you mean by the 'third world' being backwards? Is it because the countries identified as 'third world' chose not to get entangled in the slog of the Cold War? Is it because they refuse Western influence in their respective countries and pursue their own national models, which worked for some and not for others, just like every other national experiment throughout history?
The phrase acquired negative connotations simply because the third world is different and unfamiliar to the Western masses. People from the 'third world' look different, eat different foods, worship different gods, and have different perspectives on life. This is especially true in 2025, where you cannot seriously tell me that Beijing is backwards compared to crumbling Detroit, or Bangkok is inferior to Rhode Island. The masses of westerners moving to these places because their pensions can't even afford them to die in their country of birth after working for over 40 years tells me that the developing world is not as backwards as the zeitgeist is making it out to be.
Also, please do not make assumptions about what we know or don't from an article. If we are to do the same, is it fair to assume that you are a bigot who views anything non-white or non-Western as inferior and beneath your station?
> Pray tell, what do you mean by the 'third world' being backwards?
Just about any metric you care to use.
Hint: notice that people are desperately trying to get to the first world from the third and not the other way around.
> Is it because they refuse Western influence in their respective countries and pursue their own national models, which worked for some and not for others,
Their national models worked to the extent they resembled first world models.
> The phrase acquired negative connotations simply because the third world is different and unfamiliar to the Western masses. People from the 'third world' look different, eat different foods, worship different gods, and have different perspectives on life.
More importantly, they are significantly poorer.
> This is especially true in 2025, where you cannot seriously tell me that Beijing is backwards compared to crumbling Detroit,
And you may notice China isn't generally called "third world" anymore.
> The masses of westerners moving to these places because their pensions can't even afford them to die in their country of birth after working for over 40 years tells me that the developing world is not as backwards as the zeitgeist is making it out to be.
Specifically they're moving to countries where Western money goes much further because the natives are poor and desperate for hard (Western) currency.
Traditionally defined third world Brunei's GDP (PPP) PC: $95,758 vs Traditionally First world US's: $89,105.
Traditionally defined third world Saudi Arabia GDP (PPP) PC: $61,923 vs traditionally First World Japan's: $54,677
>Their national models worked to the extent they resembled first world models.
Hard no. South Korea handed over the keys to their economic kingdom to Chaebols, which had a near monopoly on the Korean economy, imposed protectionist policies, etc. Far cry from the free market economy practised in the 'First World'. China centralised its economic planning and heavily subsidised its entire economy to get ahead at the cost of its SMEs, again, nothing resembling 'First World' economies.
>More importantly, they are significantly poorer.
Nope, plenty of countries traditionally classified as third-world are not that far removed from the so-called first world in terms of wealth, GDP, and other indicators. Like everything else in life, there is a spectrum.
>And you may notice China isn't generally called "third world" anymore.
Actually, by any metric you choose, China is classified as a developing country or economy, which, in the vernacular, is synonymous with or a more polite version of the Third World.
>Specifically they're moving to countries where Western money goes much further because the natives are poor and desperate for hard (Western) currency.
By that logic, people would be moving to Congo and Afghanistan, which, if you notice, isn't happening. Most of these movements are to Southeast Asia and Latin America, not because the locals worship Western money, but because those who move can enjoy a similar (or better) standard of living than in their own country. It's not all mud huts and outdoor plumbing outside the Western world. Also, these emigres are not even rounding error to the local economy.
> Traditionally defined third world Brunei's GDP (PPP) PC: $95,758 vs Traditionally First world US's: $89,105.
> Traditionally defined third world Saudi Arabia GDP (PPP) PC: $61,923 vs traditionally First World Japan's: $54,677
Ah, small population petro-monachies.
> Hard no. South Korea handed over the keys to their economic kingdom to Chaebols, which had a near monopoly on the Korean economy,
They implemented a good enough approximation of capitalism to get them to where they are, and are somewhat stagnant because they're not willing to go further.
> By that logic, people would be moving to Congo and Afghanistan, which, if you notice, isn't happening.
Because Southeast Asia is can at least maintain basic levels of order.
Sorry, missed the part where that's a disqualifier. You did say by any metric you care to use. That's just one; there are plenty more.
>They implemented a good enough approximation of capitalism to get them to where they are, and are somewhat stagnant because they're not willing to go further.
Of course, and the so-called first world went that much further, which resulted in almost extreme wealth inequality, non-existent job markets, et al? Maybe the Koreans are onto something in not going all the way vis-a-vis capitalism. Or perhaps, capitalism is not a one size fits all cure. Mind blowing concept, I know.
>Because Southeast Asia is (sic) can at least maintain basic levels of order.
Aren't they third world, and by that definition, backwards? How can a backwards society maintain basic order? It would be challenging for these third-world countries to build goat huts, let alone functioning apartments with indoor plumbing, wouldn't it?
> Of course, and the so-called first world went that much further, which resulted in almost extreme wealth inequality, non-existent job markets, et al?
WTF are you talking about?
> Aren't they third world, and by that definition, backwards? How can a backwards society maintain basic order?
They're not as backwards as most of Africa.
> It would be challenging for these third-world countries to build goat huts, let alone functioning apartments with indoor plumbing, wouldn't it?
BTW, your performative stupidity really isn't helping your case.
Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call “minorities.” — Joseph Sobran, “Liberty, Equality, Diversity,” Sobran’s: The Real News of the Month, April 1997, pp. 4-5.
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. The memory of oppressed people is one thing that cannot be taken away, and for all the technology, wealth, and exploration Western civilisation boasts, its history is also one of slavery, genocide, exploitation, and racial arrogance. The oppressed do not envy the oppressor; they remember the cost. Racism is not the misunderstanding of kindness—it is the enduring legacy of stolen labour, stolen land, and stolen dignity. And what is called ‘Western superiority’ is too often just a monument built over the ruins of others.
Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (1980)
I have written my work, not as an essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. - Thucydides
The history of every nation is one of slavery, genocide exploitation and racial arrogance. Only in the first world do people get paid and invited to the correct dinner parties for scolding their fellow citizens about it.
By our standards (by the goals and values which we prioritize), the "developing" world IS "civilizationally inferior". Human capital, international development, foreign aid - none of these concepts would be necessary if it wasn't.
Yes, language can be a tool of oppression and prejudice (although more often perhaps it's just a reflection of it). But trying to erase any distinction or hierarchy or value judgement in language is an equally political goal, and it can be equally false. Westerners often like to pretend that there's a kind of innate worthiness to ALL cultures. Of course, this conceit falls apart as soon as they begin talking about ACTUAL foreign cultures, or history... or when they must choose a place to live.
By the standards of the modern world, the developed world is a safer, richer, easier, more opportunity-laden setting in which to build a life. It is better, and the developing world is worse. I'm not defending the term "third world" but it shouldn't be abandoned simply because it generalizes or stigmatizes or makes value judgements. Value judgements are necessary and unavoidable. Some things (cultures, beliefs, people) are simply better than others.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/white-supremacy
I’d like to quote the first three words in your comment: “By our standards.”
The Japanese, for instance, believe themselves to be descended from the sun goddess Amaterasu. By their standards, we might be seen as uncultured barbarians—people with an inferior culture, religion, and way of life. They even have a word for non-Japanese: gaijin, which roughly translates to “foreign barbarian.” Although the term is less common today, it remains in use in some circles. When some Japanese visit New York City, they often scoff at the dirty streets, the homelessness, and the general chaos of the city. Compared to Tokyo, New York can seem like a cyberpunk dystopia, measured by almost any metric except the sheer volume of money flowing through Wall Street.
So what, exactly, is “superior” about the dilapidated state of San Francisco—a city in a developed country—compared to Shanghai, which is technically in a developing country? By most reasonable metrics, Shanghai outperforms San Francisco in terms of infrastructure, cleanliness, public transportation, and overall order. Yet we continue to frame these places through a Western lens, reinforcing outdated notions of superiority.
Coming back to your point about “our standards”—yes, I get it. But that’s precisely the issue: it’s not universal, it’s your standard. And by the same standard, some places labelled “developing” are outperforming so-called developed nations—China being a prime example. It's often labelled as “developing” in Western discourse, yet in many respects, it's operating at a level that surpasses much of the West, excluding perhaps the United States.
We can debate these finer points endlessly, but that's not the core issue here. The real problem lies in how terms like “third world” are used—not analytically, but pejoratively. The phrase often functions less as a descriptor of economic status or values and more like a slur, much like ethnic insults. People who use it aren’t evaluating GDP or infrastructure; they’re using it to demean, to imply someone is lesser or inferior.
Do you honestly think someone considers cultural context when they hurl the n-word at a Black person? Of course not. Similarly, when a Westerner sees an Asian person eating with their hands instead of using cutlery, they often jump to condescending conclusions: that this person must come from a “third world” country too poor or backwards to afford utensils. There's no consideration of cultural differences, just a snap judgment across the board based on their perspectives, values, and everything in between.
And that kind of linear thinking about the world is the cause of many conflicts, unresolved or otherwise.
But it’s not my standard. It’s yours, it’s that of the Japanese, and it’s that of EVERY educated person who might be referring to the developing world.
I’m not saying that Western cultures don’t have massive flaws, but by OUR standards they are better cultures. When I say ‘our’ I’m referring to every educated person who might be involved in these conversations. The exceptions are so rare as to be negligible. People often point to family structures or norms or cultural practices as evidence of cultural equivalence, but we don’t really believe this. Wealth and civil equality and opportunity simply matter more to us… ALL of us.
The conceit that there isn’t a consensus about what represents better and worse cultural practices and cultures is just empty pretension-a gesture that educated people make to feel enlightened. Such people’s real opinions and values are better indicated by their actions and their decisions than their words. Unless they’re building career prospects or promoting international development or altruism (all themselves indicators of the cultural values I’m talking about) NONE of them choose to live in Gabon or Afghanistan. Wealth is better than poverty. Freedom is better than slavery. Education is better than ignorance. Societies that have more of the formers are better, by my standards and yours and everyone’s writing and thinking about geopolitics. It’s as close to a consensus as it’s possible to get. Pretending otherwise is like pretending that there’s no racial talent disparities, or pretending that men and women are equivalent (on average) in leadership and nurturing instinct and social aggression. They’re popular things to profess, but which no one actually believes.
'Wealth and civil equality and opportunity simply matter more to us… ALL of us.'
Actually, not quite universal. At the risk of generalisation, it's mostly a Western framework that holds these factors as sacrosanct and a marker of progress and civilisation.
East Asian cultures tend to value stability and often fall back on groupthink, and civil equality is regarded as part of the equation insofar as it serves the generation of wealth or acts as a guarantor of stability. If not, it is discarded entirely and not spoken about. Case in point with China (traditionally a third-world country, now regarded as a developing country), civil equality, liberty, and rights are (by Western standards) non-existent and not even part of the societal zeitgeist; it's all about making more money by whatever means necessary. The same can be said in Singapore, which, although moulded within a Western framework by its Cambridge-educated founder, sacrificed civil liberties for economic prosperity and societal stability, with the full support of its citizens, who don't seem to feel left out by their supposed (again, by western standards) lack of freedom.
Also, when it comes to wealth, it gets a bit sticky: are we talking obscene wealth, a la Musk, Bezos, and the likes of Goldman's CEO? Or are we talking wealth in a sense where people have a roof over their heads, enough food to eat, and enough to send their kids to school? Because the extreme pursuit of wealth is almost uniquely American, it is embedded and mythologised by the American Dream. China seems to buy into this to a certain extent, but when considering the Japanese and Europeans, wealth is only a consideration as long as their basic needs are met. Their respective systems (taxes, etc.) almost ensure that wealth inequality is small. That's why many Japanese and Europeans who prioritise wealth move either to the US or, to a certain extent, China. Also, many countries in the world are now capable of providing basic needs to many of their citizens, and though they don't all live in McMansions, they're doing ok, and many of these countries have citizens that are content to live and work in their respective countries without considering migrating to the supposed First World.
Let's agree to disagree at this point, as we seem to approach and perceive this subject from different angles and armed by our respective life experiences. I'm not saying that either of us is wrong; it's just tricky to reconcile the opposing perspectives. Cheers!
This bit is entirely b*llsh*t "By the standards of the modern world, the developed world is a safer, richer, easier, more opportunity-laden setting in which to build a life." Modernity itself is a disastrous outcome of capitalism and imperialism. Modernity is based on a great myth - the myth of Cheap Nature. Which then gives you all your stinking 1st world cheap energy, cheap food, cheap cloths, cheap transport, cheap this and that viz-a-viz entirely devalued Nature. Your argument about "distinction" - "hierarchy" and "value judgement" is entirely baseless. Why? Because all such European distinctions or hierarchies DO NOT EXIST in Nature. Do not exist outside Modernity, and those who live in Nature however primitive or savage, by your idiotic, erogenous, value system. We only get rich or powerful by exploiting Nature. Your value judgements are also an outcome capitalism and almost hedging Heteronormative Supremacy.
Everyone who talks like this (as you do) pursues education and status and financial security through those capitalist and heteronormative institutions using that technology. This isn’t even about national culture. I’m working class, and spent YEARS homeless. NO ONE in those situations expresses your ideas. I know nothing about you, and yet I will guess that you grew up in privilege and are rich in global terms. All of those ideas are abstractions, created by people with no experience of poverty and taught to people with no experience of poverty. Every decision, purchase, and career move you’ve made reflects the priority you place on capitalism and development and technology and liberal values. That’s my bet, anyway.
The paradox of modernity: oblivious, insanely-privileged, aristocrats using their smartphones to complain about capitalism and their unprecedented political and cultural liberty to complain about their society.
But your entire earlier argument has been debased by 1. Dialectic Materialism 2. Ecology. Whatever you are or not, were or will be has nothing to do with the argument of 1st world - 3rd world. You fail to see, understand and hence accept how the 1st world came about in the first place. Keep blaming a set of people, because eventually that is what gives you meaning, as any pathetic surrogate activity does. Adios!
lol. Using marxist BS language and complaining that people don’t understand history. It is hilarious.
Perhaps you understand it for your own benefit and not for any usefully objective truth. Unable to do anything but Lol thru life. Try again mediocrity.
So you espouse speech fascism and silencing the Truth, no matter how painful- triggering delusion & zero improvement where non-performers never improve without the needed criticism and peer pressure. This actually is evil- keeps mediocre countries mediocre. Be proud of your culture even though it sux. Be proud even when most of your country yearns to emigrate. Encourage host countries to virtue-signal accommodate immigrants by adopting the customs of inferior cultures, instead of mandating them to assimilate & adopt the better habits that contributed to making the host nation a world leader and immigration magnet.
Bravo. Make all cultures equally mediocre / discourage individual progress.
I will be kind and assume you either read or commented on the wrong article.
Nowhere did I mention immigration, cultural clashes, or virtue signalling. The topic is linguistic connotations, not the clash of civilisations or assimilation. Those terms do not appear in the article at all.
However, in the spirit of the First Amendment, I will allow your comment to remain. After all, the only way we can foster discussion for a better tomorrow is to hear out all and any opinions, regardless of how ludicrous or out of touch they happen to be.
That's my culture, rooted in the country where I was born.
I'm old enough that I still think of "Third World" in its original sense. But you are right about how that has changed. Ad I never liked "developing" for the reasons you describe.
In my own writing about economic issues, I just say "poor countries", just as I refer to "poor people", wherever they live. I don't agree that saying that a country or person is poor reduces them to a number - it is just an objective fact about them. And (most of the time) the best way to help poor people, or poor countries is to give them money.
Thanks for reading and commenting!
> Among the more popular replacements is “Global South”, a term which, at the very least, has the good manners not to imply intrinsic backwardness.
Neither does "Third World". In acquired the connotation of backwardness because the thing it refers to is in fact backwards. Any other term you put in its place will also swiftly acquire the connotations of its referent.
You sound like you're not familiar with the euphemism treadmill.
Pray tell, what do you mean by the 'third world' being backwards? Is it because the countries identified as 'third world' chose not to get entangled in the slog of the Cold War? Is it because they refuse Western influence in their respective countries and pursue their own national models, which worked for some and not for others, just like every other national experiment throughout history?
The phrase acquired negative connotations simply because the third world is different and unfamiliar to the Western masses. People from the 'third world' look different, eat different foods, worship different gods, and have different perspectives on life. This is especially true in 2025, where you cannot seriously tell me that Beijing is backwards compared to crumbling Detroit, or Bangkok is inferior to Rhode Island. The masses of westerners moving to these places because their pensions can't even afford them to die in their country of birth after working for over 40 years tells me that the developing world is not as backwards as the zeitgeist is making it out to be.
Also, please do not make assumptions about what we know or don't from an article. If we are to do the same, is it fair to assume that you are a bigot who views anything non-white or non-Western as inferior and beneath your station?
> Pray tell, what do you mean by the 'third world' being backwards?
Just about any metric you care to use.
Hint: notice that people are desperately trying to get to the first world from the third and not the other way around.
> Is it because they refuse Western influence in their respective countries and pursue their own national models, which worked for some and not for others,
Their national models worked to the extent they resembled first world models.
> The phrase acquired negative connotations simply because the third world is different and unfamiliar to the Western masses. People from the 'third world' look different, eat different foods, worship different gods, and have different perspectives on life.
More importantly, they are significantly poorer.
> This is especially true in 2025, where you cannot seriously tell me that Beijing is backwards compared to crumbling Detroit,
And you may notice China isn't generally called "third world" anymore.
> The masses of westerners moving to these places because their pensions can't even afford them to die in their country of birth after working for over 40 years tells me that the developing world is not as backwards as the zeitgeist is making it out to be.
Specifically they're moving to countries where Western money goes much further because the natives are poor and desperate for hard (Western) currency.
>Just about any metric you care to use.
Traditionally defined third world Brunei's GDP (PPP) PC: $95,758 vs Traditionally First world US's: $89,105.
Traditionally defined third world Saudi Arabia GDP (PPP) PC: $61,923 vs traditionally First World Japan's: $54,677
>Their national models worked to the extent they resembled first world models.
Hard no. South Korea handed over the keys to their economic kingdom to Chaebols, which had a near monopoly on the Korean economy, imposed protectionist policies, etc. Far cry from the free market economy practised in the 'First World'. China centralised its economic planning and heavily subsidised its entire economy to get ahead at the cost of its SMEs, again, nothing resembling 'First World' economies.
>More importantly, they are significantly poorer.
Nope, plenty of countries traditionally classified as third-world are not that far removed from the so-called first world in terms of wealth, GDP, and other indicators. Like everything else in life, there is a spectrum.
>And you may notice China isn't generally called "third world" anymore.
Actually, by any metric you choose, China is classified as a developing country or economy, which, in the vernacular, is synonymous with or a more polite version of the Third World.
>Specifically they're moving to countries where Western money goes much further because the natives are poor and desperate for hard (Western) currency.
By that logic, people would be moving to Congo and Afghanistan, which, if you notice, isn't happening. Most of these movements are to Southeast Asia and Latin America, not because the locals worship Western money, but because those who move can enjoy a similar (or better) standard of living than in their own country. It's not all mud huts and outdoor plumbing outside the Western world. Also, these emigres are not even rounding error to the local economy.
> Traditionally defined third world Brunei's GDP (PPP) PC: $95,758 vs Traditionally First world US's: $89,105.
> Traditionally defined third world Saudi Arabia GDP (PPP) PC: $61,923 vs traditionally First World Japan's: $54,677
Ah, small population petro-monachies.
> Hard no. South Korea handed over the keys to their economic kingdom to Chaebols, which had a near monopoly on the Korean economy,
They implemented a good enough approximation of capitalism to get them to where they are, and are somewhat stagnant because they're not willing to go further.
> By that logic, people would be moving to Congo and Afghanistan, which, if you notice, isn't happening.
Because Southeast Asia is can at least maintain basic levels of order.
>Ah, small population petro-monachies (sic).
Sorry, missed the part where that's a disqualifier. You did say by any metric you care to use. That's just one; there are plenty more.
>They implemented a good enough approximation of capitalism to get them to where they are, and are somewhat stagnant because they're not willing to go further.
Of course, and the so-called first world went that much further, which resulted in almost extreme wealth inequality, non-existent job markets, et al? Maybe the Koreans are onto something in not going all the way vis-a-vis capitalism. Or perhaps, capitalism is not a one size fits all cure. Mind blowing concept, I know.
>Because Southeast Asia is (sic) can at least maintain basic levels of order.
Aren't they third world, and by that definition, backwards? How can a backwards society maintain basic order? It would be challenging for these third-world countries to build goat huts, let alone functioning apartments with indoor plumbing, wouldn't it?
> Of course, and the so-called first world went that much further, which resulted in almost extreme wealth inequality, non-existent job markets, et al?
WTF are you talking about?
> Aren't they third world, and by that definition, backwards? How can a backwards society maintain basic order?
They're not as backwards as most of Africa.
> It would be challenging for these third-world countries to build goat huts, let alone functioning apartments with indoor plumbing, wouldn't it?
BTW, your performative stupidity really isn't helping your case.
Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call “minorities.” — Joseph Sobran, “Liberty, Equality, Diversity,” Sobran’s: The Real News of the Month, April 1997, pp. 4-5.
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. The memory of oppressed people is one thing that cannot be taken away, and for all the technology, wealth, and exploration Western civilisation boasts, its history is also one of slavery, genocide, exploitation, and racial arrogance. The oppressed do not envy the oppressor; they remember the cost. Racism is not the misunderstanding of kindness—it is the enduring legacy of stolen labour, stolen land, and stolen dignity. And what is called ‘Western superiority’ is too often just a monument built over the ruins of others.
Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (1980)
I have written my work, not as an essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. - Thucydides
The history of every nation is one of slavery, genocide exploitation and racial arrogance. Only in the first world do people get paid and invited to the correct dinner parties for scolding their fellow citizens about it.