# 1st world/industrialized world?



## andersxman

How to go about being politically correct with respect to the above terms? I just come from a lesson where the professor was asked if "3rd world country" and "1st world country" ought to be avoided as terms, as they are pejorative (in the 1st case, that is). She said yes, and favours "developing countries" and "industrialized world". Is this in accordance with the opinion of native english speakers? (My professor is not).

And btw. Why do we speak of 3rd world, you (I) don't hear the "2nd world" mentioned a lot. Which is the "2nd world"? Thank you.


----------



## maxiogee

The "second world" countries were defined as what used to be the Communist Bloc.


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> The "second world" countries were defined as what used to be the Communist Bloc.


 
I also have always wondered which world is the 2nd one... I really didn't know this. How interesting...
Do you know , by any chance, why is that? Why are (were) communist countries called 2nd world? They weren't good (rich) enough to be called 1st world and not poor enough to be called 3rd world? Or the reason does not lie in welth, but in political orientation? It really confuses me. If you know why, I would appreciate the answer very much...


----------



## maxiogee

I think it was levels of industrialisation, and there was an element of Capitalism - vs- Communism to it.


----------



## Fernando

There were two worlds (Capitalist and Socialist) and a 3rd world which was out of the blocs world. I do not think that 1st = capitalist bloc and 2nd = socialist world.


----------



## Hakro

Fernando said:
			
		

> There were two worlds (Capitalist and Socialist) and a 3rd world which was out of the blocs world. I do not think that 1st = capitalist bloc and 2nd = socialist world.


 I believe that you are right, Fernando. I have read that the concept 'third world' was first used by Alfred Sauvy in _L'Observateur_ in 1952, in the cold war time. There were two opposite 'worlds', Capitalist and Socialist in no special order, and each of them tried to get the 'third world' countries to join 'the right side'.


----------



## natasha2000

Hakro said:
			
		

> I believe that you are right, Fernando. I have read that the concept 'third world' was first used by Alfred Sauvy in _L'Observateur_ in 1952, in the cold war time. There were two opposite 'worlds', Capitalist and Socialist in no special order, and each of them tried to get the 'third world' countries to join 'the right side'.


 
Interesting...
Then, if it is like you (all of you) explain... 
When was the expression "1st world" used for the first time?


----------



## andersxman

Would anyone happen to know what the russians adopte(ed) for this? I find it hard to believe that they adhered to the 1st = west 2nd = east 3rd = non-aligned model. Maybe they agreed to calling the non-alligned countries the 3rd world, but I can't immagine they called themselves "the second world". 

Btw
Is there an english native speaker who can confirm that "developing countries" is less pejorative than "3rd world countries". Or is that not the case?

Thank you.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

andersxman said:
			
		

> Would anyone happen to know what the russians adopte(ed) for this? I find it hard to believe that they adhered to the 1st = west 2nd = east 3rd = non-aligned model. Maybe they agreed to calling the non-alligned countries the 3rd world, but I can't immagine they called themselves "the second world".
> 
> Btw
> Is there an english native speaker who can confirm that "developing countries" is less pejorative than "3rd world countries". Or is that not the case?
> 
> Thank you.



I can't confirm that "Third World" is less pejorative but I can confirm that "developing countries" is more politically correct. I was a Political Science major and we used the latter term.

"Developing Countries" is a bit more optimistic (they *ARE *developing) and "Third World" is associated with a hierarchy "First Class", "Second Class", "Third Class".


----------



## natasha2000

andersxman said:
			
		

> Would anyone happen to know what the russians adopte(ed) for this? I find it hard to believe that they adhered to the 1st = west 2nd = east 3rd = non-aligned model. Maybe they agreed to calling the non-alligned countries the 3rd world, but I can't immagine they called themselves "the second world".
> 
> Btw
> Is there an english native speaker who can confirm that "developing countries" is less pejorative than "3rd world countries". Or is that not the case?
> 
> Thank you.


 
I cannot agree with the claim non-aligned = 3rd world.
At the time, my country, now already ex-Yugoslavia, was one of the founders of non-aligned countries together with Egypt and India. 
Non-aligned block consisted of countries who did not belong to neither of the two blocks - capitalist west nor communist east. I am pretty sure that the countries that formed non-aligned block could be communist and capitalist ones...
At that time, Yugoslavia was not 3rd world country. 
It is true, though, that many non-aligned countries were also very undeveloped countries from Africa....


----------



## natasha2000

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I can't confirm that "Third World" is less pejorative but I can confirm that "developing countries" is more politically correct. I was a Political Science major and we used the latter term.
> 
> "Developing Countries" is a bit more optimistic (they *ARE *developing) and "Third World" is associated with a hierarchy "First Class", "Second Class", "Third Class".


 
Yes, but there is no medium between the "developed" and "developing countries"?
There are many countries in this world which are not developed as "developed countries" (Germany, UK, France, USA, etc) but they are neither so "undeveloped" like for example some african countries.
Is there any term which would denominate these countries, too?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Natasha, is of course, absolutely right.

From Wikipedia:

_
The country distanced itself from the Soviets in 1948 (cf. Cominform and Informbiro) and started to build its own way to socialism under strong political leadership of Josip Broz Tito. The country criticized both Eastern bloc and NATO nations and, together with other countries, started the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961, which remained the official affiliation of the country until it dissolved.

_Also from Wikipedia:

_The term "Second world" may or may not also refer to Communist countries whose leadership were at odds with Moscow, i.e., Albania, China and Yugoslavia._


----------



## Residente Calle 13

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Yes, but there is no medium between the "developed" and "developing countries"?
> There are many countries in this world which are not developed as "developed countries" (Germany, UK, France, USA, etc) but they are neither so "undeveloped" like for example some african countries.
> Is there any term which would denominate these countries, too?


In my coursework, some countries were considered "developed" like Yugoslavia, some countries were considered "advanced capitalist nations" like Germany, some were considered "lesser developed capitalist economies"  like Spain, and the same was done for countries like "Brazil"  as compared to countries like "Tchad." There were many many adjectives added to the term developed to mark the difference.

Georgraphic terms were used as well: Northern Europe v. Mediterrenean Europe where cities like Barcelona and Milan were in the North and places like Sicily, Greece, and Extremadura would be in the South.

We looked at regions in this classification as well.


----------



## natasha2000

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> In my coursework, some countries were considered "developed" like Yugoslavia, some countries were considered "advanced capitalist nations" like Germany, some were considered "lesser developed capitalist economies" like Spain, and the same was done for countries like "Brazil" as compared to countries like "Tchad." There were many many adjectives added to the term developed to mark the difference.
> 
> Georgraphic terms were used as well: Northern Europe v. Mediterrenean Europe where cities like Barcelona and Milan were in the North and places like Sicily, Greece, and Extremadura would be in the South.
> 
> We looked at regions in this classification as well.


 
Well... If you think better, it is not possible to classify all countries in the world in only three categories... That would be a very simplified division....


----------



## Hakro

In my opinion the expression "1st world" shouldn't be used at all because originally the two opposite worlds were not put in any order. There was only the "3rd world" that wasn't a part of either of the two.

As the Communist world is not anymore as united as it used to be, also the concept of 3rd world is disappearing. Another reason to this is that the differences between the 3rd world countries are big. 

Instead, now there's a new concept: The fourth world. It has been used for:
1. The most underdeveloped countries.
2. The tribe communities and the 'people without government'.
3. Socially and economically excluded areas in different countries.
4. Southeast Asian countries, Australia and New Zealand.

It must be confusing that (4) has not much in common with (1), (2) and (3) but it has been called the 4th world, too.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Well... If you think better, it is not possible to classify all countries in the world in only three categories... That would be a very simplified division....




I agree. The world is not that simple.


----------



## maxiogee

Ireland and Switzerland were non-aligned and yet were included in the "First World" and that at a time when Ireland was most decidedly a 'developing' country - as we were up until the 70s or 80s. We're still a neutral nation - and are not in NATO - despite being in the EU.


----------



## natasha2000

Hakro said:
			
		

> In my opinion the expression "1st world" shouldn't be used at all because originally the two opposite worlds were not put in any order. There was only the "3rd world" that wasn't a part of either of the two.
> 
> As the Communist world is not anymore as united as it used to be, also the concept of 3rd world is disappearing. Another reason to this is that the differences between the 3rd world countries are big.
> 
> Instead, now there's a new concept: The fourth world. It has been used for:
> 1. The most underdeveloped countries.
> 2. The tribe communities and the 'people without government'.
> 3. Socially and economically excluded areas in different countries.
> 4. Southeast Asian countries, Australia and New Zealand.
> 
> It must be confusing that (4) has not much in common with (1), (2) and (3) but it has been called the 4th world, too.


 
Why did you put Australia and New Zealand in "fourth world"? Which criteria is taken to determine the 4th world? Wealth? Political determination? Class division? This is very interesting and new for me.  I have never heard for the term "4th world" term before, especially with this kind o division... What in common New Zealand, Australia and the most undeveloped countries have?


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Ireland and Switzerland were non-aligned and yet were included in the "First World" and that at a time when Ireland was most decidedly a 'developing' country - as we were up until the 70s or 80s. We're still a neutral nation - and are not in NATO - despite being in the EU.


 
Well, they can be called as you called them - neutral. Non-aligned is already reserved term  .


----------



## Fernando

I agree with Natasha. Usually the term 4th world is used for poor minorities in rich countries.

On my opinion, I prefer the classical "rich countries/poor countries" terminology.


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:
			
		

> I agree with Natasha. *Usually the term 4th world is used for poor minorities in rich countries.*
> 
> On my opinion, I prefer the classical "rich countries/poor countries" terminology.


 
Fernando, I am afraid I don't understand what you mean by this sentence... Can you give an example of a poor minority in a rich country?
Thanks


----------



## Fernando

Eg: Black getthos in US, inmigrants in Europe, gypsies in Spain, aborigins in Australia, drunks/ drug abusers/divorced women,...


----------



## maxiogee

They are non-aligned, but are usually included in the "first world" grouping.


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:
			
		

> Eg: Black getthos in US, inmigrants in Europe, gypsies in Spain, aborigins in Australia, drunks/ drug abusers/divorced women,...


 
Hmmm....Interesting division.... So, drunks and drunk abusers equals to divoced women?

And as a 4th world, which, according to you consists of a poor indivudals, all drunks, drug abusers and divorced women, immigrants and black people are poor?


----------



## tvdxer

andersxman said:
			
		

> How to go about being politically correct with respect to the above terms? I just come from a lesson where the professor was asked if "3rd world country" and "1st world country" ought to be avoided as terms, as they are pejorative (in the 1st case, that is). She said yes, and favours "developing countries" and "industrialized world". Is this in accordance with the opinion of native english speakers? (My professor is not).
> 
> And btw. Why do we speak of 3rd world, you (I) don't hear the "2nd world" mentioned a lot. Which is the "2nd world"? Thank you.



I think that during the Cold War era, the term "first world" was used to refer to the United States, Western Europe, and other aligned market economy countries, "second world" to China, Russia, and other countries based on a Capitalist / Marxist system, and "third world" to countries, usually developing, that tried to have trade relationships with both of the first two "worlds".

Obviously, with global socialism now a thing of the past, the system is obselete.  Most people use "first world" to refer to wealthy, industrialized countries and "third" to poor, developing / undeveloped nations.  I've always thought of the "second world" as those that are somewhere in between, more often called "rapidly industrializing countries" or something like that.  The "second world" for me then consists of most of Latin America, Eastern Europe, China, etc.


----------



## Fernando

Natasha, "no me busques las cosquillas":

1) The definition is not mine. Just look in Google / wikipedia.

2) I do not use such terminology. To me is scrap.

3) Drunk abusers, drunks and divorced women with children are the biggest colectivities of poor people in 1st World countries.

The implications of your post annoys me.


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:
			
		

> Natasha, "no me busques las cosquillas":
> 
> 1) The definition is not mine. Just look in Google / wikipedia.
> 
> 2) I do not use such terminology. To me is scrap.
> 
> 3) Drunk abusers, drunks and divorced women with children are the biggest colectivities of poor people in 1st World countries.
> 
> The implications of your post annoys me.


 
Sorry for "cosqullas"... It's not anything personal.
But I understand as it is written. 
As a matter of fact, one should be very careful when citing some article from Wikipedia, since there are articles that have a note warning that this article is not fully objective or something like that, so if this is what is taken from Wikipedia, I am almost sure that particulary this definition has this kind of note.


----------



## Hakro

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Why did you put Australia and New Zealand in "fourth world"? Which criteria is taken to determine the 4th world? Wealth? Political determination? Class division? This is very interesting and new for me. I have never heard for the term "4th world" term before, especially with this kind o division... What in common New Zealand, Australia and the most undeveloped countries have?


I didn't do it. I found the list on a web site that should be reliable. Unfortunately it's in Finnish but it's based on international experts (McCall, Wolf-Phillips etc.).


----------



## natasha2000

Hakro said:
			
		

> I didn't do it. I found the list on a web site that should be reliable. Unfortunately it's in Finnish but it's based on international experts (McCall, Wolf-Phillips etc.).


 
Do they say why they put Australia and New Zealand in that list? It really intrigues me. If you knew that, it would be great. This division is very interesting and I would like to know the criteria that is taken.
Thanks.


----------



## Hakro

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Do they say why they put Australia and New Zealand in that list? It really intrigues me. If you knew that, it would be great. This division is very interesting and I would like to know the criteria that is taken.
> Thanks.


I should have pointed out more clearly that different sources are defining the 4th world in different ways. So Australia and New Zealand are never in the same category as the most underdeveloped countries and areas, but different sources are using the same term, the 4th world, for totally different definitions.


----------



## natasha2000

Hakro said:
			
		

> I should have pointed out more clearly that different sources are defining the 4th world in different ways. So Australia and New Zealand are never in the same category as the most underdeveloped countries and areas, but different sources are using the same term, the 4th world, for totally different definitions.


 
OK. Thanks a lot. This makes a lot more sense to it. Thanks again.


----------



## Brioche

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Ireland and Switzerland were non-aligned and yet were included in the "First World" and that at a time when Ireland was most decidedly a 'developing' country - as we were up until the 70s or 80s. We're still a neutral nation - and are not in NATO - despite being in the EU.


 
Ireland a "developing country" in the 70s?
Don't be daft.
What was life expectancy in Ireland in 1970? Infant mortality? Pecentage of literate people? Number of doctors? Access to hospitals? Sealed roads? Availability of electricity, telephones, radio, TV? 

Compare any of those with the figures for Guatamala, Tanzania or Cambodia, just for starters.


----------



## Fernando

Ireland was certainly a developing country in the 70s. Guatemala, Tanzania or Cambodia would be Underdeveloped countries (using the politically incorrect terminology for the period).

If you have read Ashes of Angela, you can check Ireland was not exactly Manhattan in the 50s.


----------



## Brioche

Fernando said:
			
		

> Ireland was certainly a developing country in the 70s. Guatemala, Tanzania or Cambodia would be Underdeveloped countries (using the politically incorrect terminology for the period).
> 
> If you have read Ashes of Angela, you can check Ireland was not exactly Manhattan in the 50s.


 
The book is "Angela's Ashes" in English.

I'm sure in the 1930s and 1940s you could have found children living in Manhattan and elsewhere in the USA who were as hungry as the McCourt children - and for the same reason, their fathers drank all the money.

And you could have found plenty in the UK living in very similar conditions.


----------



## Fernando

Yes, but for some reason they fled from Ireland to US and UK, not the other way around.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Fernando said:
			
		

> Yes, but for some reason they fled from Ireland to US and UK, not the other way around.



I'm sorry, but I'm a little lost. As far as I know, the immigration of Irish to the US in the 1970s was negligible. I know some Irish immigrants who came in the 70s, and some who came in the nineties but I'm pretty sure they did not come in the same numbers or for the same reasons as other waves. In fact, they were not part of a wave at all. It's wasn't even a ripple.


----------



## Fernando

1) Most Irish emigration took place to 1970. In 1950-1960 Irish still emigrated by the thousands. I was specifically speaking about McCourt family. If you have read the book you can check (first-handed) how large was the difference between US and Ireland at the time.

2) Emigration from poor countries of Europe (Greece, Italy and Iberian Peninsule) to "Rich" Europe also decayed in the 70s, given the general quasi-collapse of wealthy economies (oil crisis).

You can check in any table that Irish GNP per capita was the lowest in W Europe (with the possible exception of Greece and Portugal).

http://migration.ucc.ie/etudesirlandaises.htm


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Oh. Okay, I get it now.


----------



## annettehola

Hej, Anders!

Your - or your professor's - question is interesting. I agree with Maxi that the 2nd, then, must have been the Cap. vs. Com-thing that has now been replaced by the Muslim vs. West-thing.

They are, of course, *fictitious* terms altogether. I think your professor's doubt in whether or not to use them as *fixed and broadly accepted* terms in language is fully justified. It is dangerous not to ask language what language is and where it comes from. It is dangerous to be blind to language. It is necessary to know *where and for what reasons* words are used and accepted. So it is necessary to find out what the motives are or were. No words just fell down from the sky or sprang right out of a volcano. Words were and are created by people and the *motives* they have for creating them. It seems no one knows why these particular terms exist. I suggest we don't use them, then. I understand the doubt of your professor.

- And, by the way, all countries in this here world have a name. Why on Earth not call them by their name?

Annette


----------



## Hakro

If we go back to the original question *Why do we speak of 3rd world, you (I) don't hear the "2nd world" mentioned a lot. Which is the "2nd world"?* we have to consider that the concept "3rd world" was created by Alfred Sauvy in 1952. He did not call the Capitalist and the Communist worlds number one and number two or vice versa. On the contrary, he said that this 3rd world is number one chronologically.

You can read the whole column (in French) here.


----------



## Fernando

Thank you very much for the link, Hakro. Most useful.

As far as my almost non-existant French reach, he uses Tiers Monde as an equivalent to sous-dévelopée (Eng. under-developed, Sp. subdesarrollados) adn as a way to recall the Revolution term "Tiers État" (Third state/class, tercer estamento).

Anyway, the term has evolved to become an euphemism (Thirld World) for an euphemism (under-developed). To me the term is totally unuseful I would rather prefer "poor" or "less developed" (to use the standard current euphemism).


----------

