Is the term "Third World" racist?

Question

Funny how it seems to describe everywhere that pretty much doesn't have white people, save for Japan really.

I used to live overseas in a "third-world country", and it wasn't that much different from America, opportunity wise and living wise.

Answer 1

It may not be 'racist', but it certainly smacks of being totally 'materialist'-ic !

Answer 2

Actually, the way that we use the words now are not how they were coined. They were used in 1952 by French demographer Alfred Sauvy.



First world was the West (US, Western Europe, Japan). Second world was the USSR and the Soviet Bloc. Third world were countries that chose not to ally themselves with either side (Mostly Africa and some South America).



After the fall of the Soviet Union, the United Nations kept the terms to describe areas of development and redevelopment. They also added "Fourth World" which are the countries that lack any infastructure or development at all.



Some people use it to describe races, but those were not the foundings of the terms.

Answer 3

India is a third world country, right? Well it's a leader in software, technology, doing well in many areas such as textiles. It has a culture far richer than many First world countries, it's thriving as a democracy. It has one of best education systems in the world, and its military power is among the best.

Yes there are poor people, but in USA which is First world and rich has poor people, homeless people, aged who are uncared for. Third world is not only racist but a deplorably misleading term!

Answer 4

It's another Racist term, Country's have names, and I have also lived abroad and in most aspects it is better than America at the present time. It is just the present Administration running everyone down. That's the only way they know how to communicate, and It is mostly out of fear. George Bush played the fear card to keep the cattle in line. It's all a game he opened up for the racists to speak.

Answer 5

The definition of third world is:

Third World also third world

n.



1. The developing nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin American.

2. Minority groups as a whole within a larger prevailing culture.



Therefore, it could be used as a derogatory term but not necessarily racist since it doesn't refer to any specific race.

Answer 6

I sort of agree with you. "Third World" is an obsolete term, used decades ago in the age of cold war. Now some of the "Third World" countries, especially in east Asia, are developing so fast that I don't see any fundamental difference from the western world.

Answer 7

To suggest that the term is racist is to dilute the definition of racism. If you keep searching for things to call racist, the impact is lost and you weaken the effort to diminish behaviour which is truly racially offensive.



Your statement "everywhere that pretty much doesn't have white people" has a distinctly racial tone to it. But I guess it's not possible to be racist towards whites huh?

Answer 8

using history, i do no longer think of the term desires to get replaced. whilst we communicate antisemitism immediately, we'd desire to communicate it contained in the context of history. starting to be a clean term, even no remember if it extremely is extra precise, will detach historic antisemitism from what is going on immediately that's, basically like contained in the previous, directed extraordinarily against the Jews. i think of fixing the term into anti-Jewish will serve the comparable purpose because of the fact the folk who say "it is no longer the Jews, it is purely Israel" yet on the comparable time help people who say that one and all Jews might desire to assemble in Israel so as that they gained't might desire to be hunted globally. by way of detaching antisemitism from its historic context with calling it by way of a distinctive call, we are helping decrease its evil value. Antisemitism isn't strictly against people of the Jewish faith, it is no longer an argument that the regulations of the Jews are incorrect. This concept is something i can settle for. i can settle for somebody arguing that the notice which the Torah is attempting to portray isn't good. it is totally contained in the comparable way that i've got self assurance the notice, or the regulations of Islam at the instant are not good. yet it is no longer what antisemitism is. it is the detest of each Jew inspite of his faith, regardless if that guy or woman is a non secular Jew or an earthly Jew. it extremely is basically that reality that the guy is of Jewish ancestry that's the reason to hate. it extremely is a hate in keeping with racism, it extremely is in keeping with ancestry, and not on non secular ideals. that's why i think of the term antisemitism, that's a racial term describing ancestry, suits the define extra advantageous than anti-Jewish, which in any different case may be excused as basically a conflict of words with the non secular regulations of that faith. those are the two motives i think of the term might desire to proceed to be because it extremely is.

Answer 9

before: america and europe was the first world, the soviet union the second world, and all the rest-asia, africa-was the third world.

1980s: the soviet union collapsed. no more second world.

today: no more second world means no more ordinal order of the world. therefore it is illogical to call a country part of either the first world or the third world.

we say "developing or developed country" instead if you want to mean socioeconomic growth.

Answer 10

I think too many people are looking for reasons to label others as racist, as doing so will presumably make them feel better about themselves or to defer responsibility. Racism wouldn't be as rampant if so many people weren't so quick to want to label random acts/words as such if those acts/words just happen to involve someone of a different race. It's gone past the ridiculous. So my answer is NO.

Answer 11

I agree with Tyger. The reference is toward the social and economical development level of a country. It just broadly describes a fact.

Answer 12

No. First world country is a developed couintry, second world country is a developing country and third world country is a undeveloped country. This is based on ecomony, employment, stability etc.

Answer 13

To call a place a third world country does come across as insulting and i bet it wouldnt help tourism to those countries

Answer 14

Yeah it is racist because racist means: The social and economical state of a country. What?

Answer 15

The term (( 3rd world ) is not only racist .. it is SUPER RACIST .. Do you know who make this racist classification .. it is the American Companies.In (Saudi Arabia) many US-COMPANIES ARE OPERATING HERE like HALIBURTON .. BECHTEL

Flour .. etc.



Their Payroll Classified as follows:



US-PERSONNEL - 1ST CLASS

UK/OTHER WESTERNERS - 2ND CLASS

ASIANS/LOCALS/OTHERS 3RD CLASS OR Third Country Nationals

Answer 16

Not at all. it collectively describes countries that are in the process of development from 'under-developed' to 'developed'. i think one should not feel too sensitive about terms of this nature because there really are no 'racist' overtones about it.

Answer 17

Kinda

Answer 18

Not in my opinion. It just means that the people who live there are dirt poor. No matter what race they are. They could all be blended races and still be dirt poor and considered 3rd world...

Answer 19

Well, who rates the country anyway? I bet the first one hey?

Answer 20

not really, but if used wrong then it can be like to degrade someone about where they come from